So back to my original question.
Who on here has had direct personal contact with an agency due to be axed/merged, and would like to stick up for them?

I am not against quangos per-se, but my experience with many has been that they spend to much of their time propping up their own existence rather than doing the job.

So Environment agency gets a tick from me (but thats not to be axed anyway).

Come on…someone must have dealt with one of the 150+ agencies on that list? If they havn’t then it kind of makes my point about them being no great loss.

@robdob / Kuco – the word going round is that there’s scope for the flood defence aspects of the Environment Agency’s remit to be picked up by other parties, potentially the water companies, who have some track record in investment planning and delivering efficiencies in delivery over the last couple of decades.

As for the other functions that the EA fulfil in pollution prevention etc – yeah, wouldn’t it be odd if it was all split up again, back to the NRA / HMIP / Waste Regs. Seem to recall the argument back then was that merging = efficient… Can’t believe that anyone would be daft enough to bring say an NRA role back into a water company though (poacher and gamekeeper under one roof like when what became the NRA used to be the Rivers Division of the Water Authorities).

As a general comment – let’s not confuse most of these proposed cuts with efficiencies, they’re just savings. Efficiencies are when you do the same with less (or more with the same).

let’s not confuse most of these proposed cuts with efficiencies

A very valid point IMHO.

CHB – Member

I am not against quangos per-se

Well you’ve managed to keep that fact well hidden up until now.

Still, you will be pleased to know that puts you firmly in line with the Con-Lib government……they too, quite like quangos.

In fact they want to create new quangos.

And not just any old quango like the “Supermarket Ombudsman” which they promised to create before the last general election, but bigger and more powerful quangos.

The Tories have already created the most powerful quango in British history…..the Office for Budget Responsibility. And next, they are poised to create the largest quango in British history……..the Independent NHS Commissioning Board.

.

Come on…someone must have dealt with one of the 150+ agencies on that list? If they havn’t then it kind of makes my point about them being no great loss.

Slightly flawed logic there mate, I have never had any direct dealings with the Food Standards Agency, or the Forestry Commission, or any of the utility regulators set up by Tory governments, but it does not necessarily follow that it would not affect me if they were scrapped.

BTW, are you aware that not all quango expenditure comes from government funding ? IIRC they generate about a third of their own funding. In the case of the Food Standards Agency, I believe they generate about two thirds of their own funding.

Ernie, not flawed logic.
All I am saying is that STW has a broad selection of people on it.
So amongst that broad selection, some of us by reason of probability must have had dealings or come into contact with at least some of the quangos due to be axed/merged?
From my experience most the ones I have dealt with have been largely self serving and overly beaurocratic. But I am happy to be enlightened.

For what its worth, I am not convinced about the divesting of NHS resources into the GP/private sector. This I think is wrong, but thats for another thread.

CHB – Member
So back to my original question.
Who on here has had direct personal contact with an agency due to be axed/merged, and would like to stick up for them?

I’ve done with One North East (regional development agency) and they are probably the best performing RDA in England. It should probably have been kept, but it doesn’t fit with Tory regional policy… well, they don’t really have a regional policy as demonstrated by attempting to bring all power back to the centre.Unfortunately, people in London are not best placed (literally) to make decision about the North.

CaptJon, thats good to hear. The NE does need some serious TLC to keep the economy going, and I hope it gets it. Still good to hear the steelworks is staying open, and that Sunderland is becoming a centre for electric car expertise. All good stuff.

CaptJon, thats good to hear……… All good stuff.

How is that “good to hear” ?

I thought CaptJon said that it was going to be scrapped, despite “all the good stuff” they do ……..did I misread something ? 😕

BTW, it would appear that over a third of One North East’s expenditure comes from the EU’s European Regional Development Fund :

http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/europeansupport.cfm

Is that money still going to be spent ?

Will the Con-Lib government have to set up a new quango to administer it ?

Sounds like playing political/idealogical games to me.

Ernie, are you determined to take my words out of context?
Good to hear as in, “Good to hear that you had a positive experience with One North East”.
All good stuff as in, its good that the steel works and Nissan are seeing some investment, more is needed.
I thought that my comments above would have made that obvious.
Don’t try and pigeonhole me into some narrow political cubby-hole.
I started this topic to hear opinions on Quangos. I know I chose an incendiary title, but thats the only way on STW to get people to read it.

I am not blindly following the lib/con mantra, but I do think that Labour under Gordon/Balls wasted a lot of money and have left a legacy of cost and inefficiency. I hope that lib/cons correct this, but also hope they don’t go too far in the opposite direction.

CHB – Member

Ernie, are you determined to take my words out of context?

What are talking about ?

If you prefer, I will take your words in their whole context :

“CaptJon, thats good to hear. The NE does need some serious TLC to keep the economy going, and I hope it gets it. Still good to hear the steelworks is staying open, and that Sunderland is becoming a centre for electric car expertise. All good stuff.”

So again I repeat : How is that “good to hear” ? CaptJon said that it is going to be scrapped. Therefore it is very sad to hear that One North East do lots of “good stuff”……is it not ?

No one is taking “your words out of context” …….if you have been forced to eat them, then that is altogether another issue.

.

I started this topic to hear opinions on Quangos. I know I chose an incendiary title, but thats the only way on STW to get people to read it.

No you didn’t. You started this topic to slag off quangos, the clue is in the title : “bye bye useless QUANGO’s“.

If you merely wanted to discuss the topic then something along the lines of “So what do we all think of quangos then ?” would have been enough – you would have had plenty of response.

The truth is that because of the responses you received, you have had to backtrack. Nothing wrong with that of course, but don’t try and blame me for the awkward situation that you find yourself in.

No eating of words.
I still say that from the contact I have had with Quangos, most of them were not the best way to spend my taxes.

From the response I have had I think this experience is shared by others, I mean its not exactly an outpouring of support for many on that list is it??

Ernie, you seem to mistake a balanced view of the world with backtracking.
I said that the title was inflamatory on purpose.

So come on then which Quangos on that list should be kept?

Will this lefty tantrum never end?

I do hope not as it’s rather amusing.

EL – adopting the numbering I originally used, where relevant, my quick responses are:

War on Want/TJN – I am just a bit sceptical about the UK being responsible for 40% of the world’s tax evasion which their figures imply and there is no backup on the TJN site. I am happy with the £15 bn number which is £7 billion tax evasion, £ 5 billion criminal tax activity and £3 billion hidden economy, these are the numbers I think Mr Alexander used (see the report linked and the original research).

(i) Dr Vincent Cable is not responsible for Revenue & Customs so his views are irrelevant it is part the Treasury not Business & Skills. Apologies if I was previously overly familiar.

(ii) Previously Revenue Prosecutions were done in house then they were shifted to a quango, when Customs and Inland Revenue were merged. The quango is now being merged with the CPS – so no downgrading as far as I can see – just putting all your prosecutory knowledge in one place.

(iii) There is a difference – the NFA is a QUANGO. But as noted above I am happy with the number because I am sure he was using the same numbers.

Hope I avoided posh words – but at least my use of them makes your job of reading my posts as time consuming as my reading of yours!

Come on, someone must want to stick up for a specific Quango after having had dealings with them?

So far we have Environment Agency (which isn’t getting axed anyway), and the NE development one, which I can understand needs a team to marshal EU resources into. But is that it?

CHB – Member

Come on, someone must want to stick up for a specific Quango after having had dealings with them?

We’ll let TJ establish a new QUANGO to establish whether the existing QUANGOs are any good. Then we’ll establish another QUANGO in order to verify the thoroughness of TJ’s review.

😉

bravohotel9er, you couldn’t do that.
Thats Quango in-breeding that is. You’d need the fertilisation and embryology Quango to oversee it.

I’m reminded of the time that my corner of the public sector started to worry that it was spending too much on management consultants.

How did we react to this, you may wonder?

Did we decide to cut back on said consultants?

Not a bit of it. Rather, we opted to pay a different firm of management consultants to carry out a review into our use of consultancies.

😯

Looks like Ernie must have gone out celebrating Ed’s victory.

(He seems like a decent chap, and his environmental credentials are good, I just hope he sucked up to the unions out of convenience rather than conviction).

someone must want to stick up for a specific Quango after having had dealings with them

i’ve worked with the Commission for Rural Communities since they have been about which is only a few years. They look into rural disadvantage and rural social needs in general. I think the work they do is very valuable and I think it is good that they have a dedicated organisation doing this. It is to become part of Defra which I believe is where it was created in the first place. Whether this a good thing or not I don’t know but I fear that becoming part of the beast that is defra may slow such work down or lose its impetus altogether as defra will have to deal with many different priorities. If this is not the case well I suppose it’s not a bad thing, although the costs or reorganising could be interesting – I assume someone somewhere is working this out. Time will tell.

whipppersnapper, thanks for your contribution,
What kind of rural disadvantage do/did this team look into?
Was it housing for keyworkers/decendants of locals or something else?

CHB – Member

Looks like Ernie must have gone out celebrating Ed’s victory.

Why’s that…..because I’ve not bothered posting recently ?

mefty just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again. But if you want, I’ll keep rejecting his comments.
Just to make you happy like……..I’m that sort of guy.

.

War on Want/TJN – I am just a bit sceptical about the UK being responsible for 40% of the world’s tax evasion which their figures imply and there is no backup on the TJN site. I am happy with the £15 bn number which is £7 billion tax evasion, £ 5 billion criminal tax activity and £3 billion hidden economy, these are the numbers I think Mr Alexander used

If you’re not happy with War on Want’s figures, then settle for Attorney General’s figures – more than double Danny Alexander’s figures. So what if the Attorney General’s figures includes criminal tax activity and the hidden economy……doesn’t Danny Alexander want to deal with that ?

BTW I assume War on Want’s figures also includes “legal” tax avoidance, the sort which mega wealthy dodgy people like Tony Blair like to use. Doesn’t Danny Alexander want to close those loopholes ? If not, why not ?

.

Dr Vincent Cable is not responsible for Revenue & Customs so his views are irrelevant it is part the Treasury not Business & Skills.

You keep banging on that “it has nothing to do with him”, and yet, he told the Andrew Marr show that they were “beefing-up resources” so that tax could be collected properly ……should Andrew Marr have told him “but it’s got nothing to do with you” ?

By that same logic mefty, it has also therefore nothing to do Danny Alexander either – he also isn’t “responsible” for Revenue & Customs. So why do you keep singing his praises telling us all how is going to clamp down on tax evasion ?

The truth is that is has a lot to do with with Danny Alexander, Vincent Cable, and the rest of the Con-Lib shower, specially if they demand that Revenue & Customs cuts it’s budgets by 25%. How can that not effect them ?

.

(iii) There is a difference – the NFA is a QUANGO. But as noted above I am happy with the number because I am sure he was using the same numbers.

Saying “I am sure he was using the same numbers” makes it sound that you are not at all sure that he is using the same numbers. TopTip : saying “He is using the same numbers” would have sounded as if you were actually convinced.

Ernie, my dear Ernie, Polish state vodka taking its toll on your temper?
Don’t let that nasty decadent Mefty wind you up.
Instead stick to the thread and tell me if you can defend any of the due to be axed quangos?

If you can’t defend any of them with specific experience then I am forced to assume your posts are purely based on the fact that any reduction of state infrastructure is an assault on what you hold dear, irrespective of whether it serves the tax payer.

CHB – Member

Ernie, my dear Ernie, Polish state vodka taking its toll on your temper?

Well I like that…….I post “just to make you happy like……..I’m that sort of guy” and you come out with that stroke.

Far from it being me who is taking a position purely due to idealogical commitment, I fear that it is you, the Con-Lib government, and the other anti-quangoists, who are motivated by idealogical prejudices.

As far I am concerned, I have opposed every government which has been in power for the last 30 years. I am not however so blinkered and narrow-minded as not accept that even bodies set up Tory governments, can play a useful role.

Ok Ernie, I offer my sincerest appologies for upsetting you potato vodka fueled sensitivities 😉

I am not an an ideologically based anti-quangoist (if thats a correct phrase), but as said before my experience of them has not been beneficial to the tax payer.

So don’t dodge the subject, have you had any dealings with them that you care to talk about, or are you just here for the (perceived) capitalist company?

What kind of rural disadvantage do/did this team look into?
Was it housing for keyworkers/decendants of locals or something else?

yep, that’s the kind of thing they look at. Housing, access to services, economic development, education – all social aspects are considered. The CRCs role as far as I can make out is to influence policy. They almost act as a lobby group for rural social affairs. This is important because rural areas are often overlooked. To me it is a way of coordinating local authorities into action, much in the same way the regional development agencies were intended to do.

Their worth. It’s difficult. There is no money to be made as such so these jobs wont happen without public initiative. That said I think their value comes from helping people and business in what areas they account for. Whether quangos are justified are not is difficult to measure. To do properly would need longer than most of them are given to operate in.

So, in conclusion…do you have any vodka left

EL – Sorry to have been away, but I think you are losing your marbles.

I said I accepted the numbers in the report as I believe they are the same numbers. THE NFA report you referred to implies a cost of tax evasion of £7 billion (17.5% of 40 billion), that is the same number as Mr Alexander used. There is no difference between them no matter how many times you repeat it.

I believe as HMRC or Revenue & Customs reports to the Treasury and as Mr Alexander is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the most senior Lib Dem in that department, it is not unreasonable to give more weight to his views, he is afterall a minster in the department with the ultimate responsibility.

Thank you for the very helpful comments on English usage – the problem is, if I said what you suggest it would not accurately reflect my level of certainty (which is not complete) and that would be dishonest – wouldn’t it? Anyway as Socrates said “I am wiser than the average man in that I know that I know nothing.”

mefty – Member

THE NFA report you referred to implies a cost of tax evasion of £7 billion (17.5% of 40 billion), that is the same number as Mr Alexander used.

No it doesn’t. THE NFA report very clearly states that £15.2 billion is lost through tax fraud.

Check yourself in the NFA document.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/nfa/GuidetoInformation/Documents/NFA_fraud_indicator.pdf

It is under the following headings :

Annual fraud indicator
Summary
Figure 1
Breakdown of fraud losses

.

Citywire uses the Attorney General’s figures in their article : Tax evasion costs Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud

Quote : At £30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion.

BTW, thank you for your comment “I think you are losing your marbles” a useful and worthwhile contribution which I will take on board. Although I doubt whether my ability to read the Attorney General’s report and the Citywire article correctly, is a sign of mental instability. I however, will not concern myself with your sanity, preferring instead to concentrate on the fact that you are wrong.

For the purposes of this document it is assumed that
the categories of ‘evasion’, ‘hidden economy’ and
‘criminal attacks’ equate to fraud. These behaviours
account for around 37.5 per cent of the tax gap.
Applying this percentage to the total tax gap provides
an estimate of £15 billion for tax fraud in 2007-08.
This represents around 3.5 per cent of total tax receipts
and 3 per cent of the total tax which in HMRC’s view
should be collected.
3

It says tax fraud is £15 billion – not tax evasion which is only one part of it. Hope that clarifies.

You’re just playing games mefty. The electorate aren’t interested in pedantic games about ‘evasion’, ‘hidden economy’ and ‘criminal attacks’. The document clearly states that £15.2 billion is lost through tax fraud. There is no reason why Danny Alexander shouldn’t tackle that figure. If tax isn’t being paid due to the ‘hidden economy’ and ‘criminal attacks’ it is still “tax evasion”.

The Attorney General’s Office only makes a distinction simply “for the purposes of this document”. The Citywire article refers to tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year[/b]. That is good enough for me, as I’m sure it is for most other people. Even though it might not be for you and your LibDem mate.

EDIT : “Mr Alexander is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the most senior Lib Dem in that department, it is not unreasonable to give more weight to his views”

He is a politician. He uses figures and statistics in whatever way suits him best. If playing down the problem by not categorising the “hidden economy” as tax evasion suits him, then so be it. Nothing surprising there. However the public see tax fraud/evasion as tax/evasion fraud. And he has been less than honest with them.

Oh Ernie, you’re back!
Did you think of any Quangos worth saving?
Anyone?

[Also, and this is a different topic, you can’t get rid of the hidden economy whilever cash exists, you can reduce it, and avoidance, but there will always be “cash in hand”].

MPs say coalition has bungled quango cuts

Quote :

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has botched its “bonfire of the quangos” and the cutbacks will not necessarily deliver any big savings, a parliamentary report said on Friday.

“The whole process was rushed and poorly handled and should have been thought through a lot more,” said Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, who chairs the cross-party Public Administration Committee which produced the report.