Forum menu
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 - MemberCome 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 - MemberLooks 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 [i]not at all[/i] sure that he is using the same numbers. TopTip : saying "[i]He [b]is[/b] using the same numbers[/i]" 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 - MemberErnie, my dear Ernie, Polish state vodka taking its toll on your temper?
Well I like that.......I post "[i]just to make you happy like........I'm that sort of guy[/i]" and you come out with that stroke.
Far from it being [b][i]me[/i][/b] who is taking a position purely due to idealogical commitment, I fear that it is [i]you[/i], the Con-Lib government, and the other anti-quangoists, who are motivated by idealogical prejudices.
As far [b]I[/b] 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 - MemberTHE 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.
It is under the following headings :
[i] Annual fraud indicator
Summary
Figure 1
Breakdown of fraud losses[/i]
.
Citywire uses the Attorney General's figures in their article : [url= http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274 ]Tax evasion costs Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud[/url]
Quote : [b][i]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.[/i][/b]
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 [u]fraud[/u] is £15 billion - not tax [u]evasion[/u] 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' [u]it is still "tax evasion"[/u].
The Attorney General's Office only makes a distinction simply "for the purposes of this document". The Citywire article refers to [i][b]tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year[/i][/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 : [i]"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"[/i]
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"].
[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70600320110107 ]MPs say coalition has bungled quango cuts[/url]
Quote :
[i]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," [b]said Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin[/b], who chairs the cross-party Public Administration Committee which produced the report.[/i]