bye bye useless QUANGO's

Home Forum Chat Forum bye bye useless QUANGO's

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 111 total)
  • bye bye useless QUANGO's
  • allthepies
    Member

    >Canals mainly in Labour areas, Broads a tory area?

    LOL.

    GaryLake
    Member

    Student Loans Company. Oh great, that could get messy! Still got around £5k to go…

    mefty
    Member

    I am not sure I am “extolling” etc. It is not as if we don’t pay for them already.

    As far as some of them being set up by the Tories, circumstances change, organisations evolve and drift away from their original purpose and even Tory governments get things wrong from time to time.

    Also unfortunately for a proportion the jobs they do are required – sometimes by law eg. HEFA and the work they do will be just moved to another organisation. No cost saving.

    Absorb role into existing government department, retain the front line staff doing the job they were already doing, transfer to existing government offices, get rid of the QUANGO’s need for their own dedicated HR, salary, accounts, receptionists, headed notepaper and offices. Significant cost saving!

    The clue in the problem with Quangos is in their name – Quasi-Autonomous. TJ, this isnt a private/public sector issue – QUANGO’s are not private sector.

    Jeez, don’t you see? Once they remove all the quango’s there’ll be no one with an overseeing role, then they can do whatever they like to health, education, social services and there will be no one to stop them.

    Useless Quangos? Dear God! how far off are you?? Why don’t you tell us why they are all useless?

    Agreed Zulu, but for some areas I think autonomy is quite important.

    Zulu – the justification for setting most of them up was cost saving!

    You guys are laughable.

    The costs of the reorganisation and the redundancies will outstrip any savings is my guess – but they will be able to tell teh tory conference they have slain a dragon!

    Premier Icon tonyg2003
    Subscriber

    Absorb role into existing government department, retain the front line staff doing the job they were already doing, transfer to existing government offices, get rid of the QUANGO’s need for their own dedicated HR, salary, accounts, receptionists, headed notepaper and offices. Significant cost saving!

    700000 people are employed in 1200 quangos http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/24/bonfire-quangos-peoples getting rid of non essential quangos completely will save money but moving people between quangos and government departments will save very little money. The higher management of quangos will go – at vast pay offs – then where do you put the people in the government departments. Relocation expenses, extra building, have goverment departments excess HR/salary/acounts people etc….

    Headed notepaper – that’s going to cut the deficit.

    mefty
    Member

    CM, if they are regarded as “impartial” (there is a whole host of them that meet this criteria), they are to be retained, it is those that aren’t that won’t (if they are not “technical” either).

    zokes
    Member

    After yet another monumental display of complete and utter incompetence: so much so that you would wonder whether any of the staff there are actually capable of breathing, so little sentient activity is demonstrated by their correspondence; could I please nominate the DVLA to be abolished?

    I would start a rant thread here, but I’ve just written them one to them, and can’t be bothered wasting any more of my time on them.

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    So come on then, has anyone on here had any dealings with any of the QUANGOs due to be chopped, and if so do they now think “wow, I can’t believe such a vital team is being wound up and closed”.

    Well?

    For my part, I have dealt with several QUANGOs and have never been a fan of many of them or thought they were all efficient or effective.

    ShaunW1973
    Member

    I work for the Envrionment Agency. We’re on the ‘undecided’ list. Ace.
    A lot of very worried people here.

    CaptJon
    Member

    So, according to the guardian there are 1200 quangos. The govt are having a bonfire of potentially 260… leaving almost 1000.

    robdob
    Member

    I can’t see how they’d get rid of the EA (I’m an Environment Officer). Someones got to design build and maintain the entire country’s flood defence systems, enforce waste legislation and stop the rivers turning back into hazardous septic drains full of industrial effluents.

    noteeth
    Member

    Someones got to design build and maintain the entire country’s flood defence systems, enforce waste legislation and stop the rivers turning back into hazardous septic drains full of industrial effluents.

    Don’t worry, I’m sure Z-11 has got a bucket and spade… Big Society, here we come!!

    Robdob – nope – here will be more profits for Camerons pals if they don’t have to be clean

    We use the Independent Living Fund to access additional funds for people with large care packages. People with physical disabilities such as MS, Motor Neurone disease and complex learning disabilities. The ILF could – they announced a freeze on all but a select type of applications a few months ago – provide additional funding of up to £450 a week as long as the service user was in receipt of services from their local authority of over £320 per week.

    WTF is going to be put in place? Councils are already facing unprecedented cuts which is bound to affect what we can provide to the vulnerable people the ILF assists. Rough times ahead 🙁

    I think the government is probably doing the right thing here. They are getting rid of organisations that don’t have an obvious or useful role, and will save a shitload of cash in doing so.

    If it turns out say X% of those were actually required, they can set up new agencies that are more efficient and closer to what is required.

    It’s a neat way of sorting out wastage. I suspect the number actually required may not even break into double figures.

    Sandy – yeah, organizations like the Independent Living Fund that don’t have an obvious or useful role 🙄

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    I have had dealings with the environment agency and I can confirm they are a professional and diligent lot.

    SF: I can’t imagine deciding what organizations to cut can be an easy or pain free task, and there must have been some sort of consultation procss before announcing the cuts?

    Maybe the work the ILF did will be taken up by a similar organisation?

    CaptJon
    Member

    I think the government is probably doing the right thing here. They are getting rid of organisations that don’t have an obvious or useful role, and will save a shitload of cash in doing so.

    If only that was what they were doing.

    Kuco
    Member

    LOL I also work for the EA in ops delivery, imo the only way that we could go again if it was split back up. If they cut ops delivery back anymore they’ll be no one left.

    grum – Member

    Interesting mefty – I assumed when I hadn’t heard anything about it, and when I wrote to my local Tory MP about it and he ignored the letter, that they weren’t doing anything. That’s encouraging, thanks.

    You’ve been suckered mate.

    The Con-Lib government has absolutely no intention of seriously tackling tax evasion.

    Danny Alexander’s claim that he would raise £7bn from tax evaders was a PR exercise aimed mostly at LibDems at conference who were on the verge of rebelling against the coalition government.

    For a start £7bn is just a fraction of the estimated total. According to Attorney General’s Office, the total is more than twice that amount – over £15bn.

    Also according to Attorney General’s Office, benefit fraud is estimated to total just over £1bn.

    Which means that tax evasion costs the Treasury 15 TIMES MORE than benefit fraud.

    Tax evasion costs Treasury 15 times more than benefit fraud

    Do you hear the government talking 15 times more about clamping down on tax evasion than about clamping down on benefit fraud grum ? ……do you f##k 😐

    Of course the way you calculate the estimated loss to the Treasury through tax evasion depends what you include. The charity War on Want calculates the figure is actually £100bn. Which would mean that tax dodgers are getting away with 100 times more than benefit cheats.

    http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/tax-dodging

    Quote : “Britain also loses an estimated £100 billion a year through tax dodging. That’s enough to double funding for the NHS.”[/i]

    Whatever the figure, is it is considerably more than £7bn. Which means that Danny Alexander is perfectly happy to let the majority of tax evaders get away with it.

    And finally, do you think that if the Con-Lib government was really really serious about clamping down on tax evasion, they would be scrapping the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office “quango” ? The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office is on CHB’s list of quangos to be scrapped.

    Do you think Vince Cable was telling the truth when he said on the Andrew Marr show that the coalition was committed to “beefing-up resources” so that tax could be collected properly ?

    I’ll remind you that it is the same Vince Cable who has demanded that HM Revenue & Customs finds 25% in cuts from its budgets as part of the “spending review”.

    Danny Alexander and Vince Cable will never treat tax evasion as a priority………well they wouldn’t want to upset their new mates in the Tory Party now would they ?

    God help “benefit cheats” which in comparison to tax dodging Tories cost the country almost nothing though.

    Premier Icon oldagedpredator
    Subscriber

    Its more likely the enviroment agency will become responsible for more things by absorbing Natural England in England. It’ll mostly be the same people doing the same jobs new logos. Well nearly, 800 people are for the chop in Natural England, its only a couple of years since the last shake up when it was formed by merging English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Putting all recreation and conservation eggs in one basket. So another merger would put all enviromental matters into one agency called…

    ShaunW1973
    Member

    The eggs in one basket agency?

    Premier Icon oldagedpredator
    Subscriber

    The quango cull could hit cycling hard as pointed out inBike Biz. Downside is same for mountain biking as it will become a relatively smaller voice in the general scramble for attention of a larger agency. Looks like we’ll be caught out by that lack of effective representation again.

    Premier Icon oldagedpredator
    Subscriber

    Or the Eggstremely Big Agency.

    I think the rules of naming are there must be no opertunity to continue to use stuff you have already paid for. Although Durham County Council failed (was thwarted) on this one.

    mefty
    Member

    Ernie – that is loquacious even by your standards, I know you like a good rant but do War on Want have any backup for their numbers?

    There are also a few factual inaccuracies, namely:

    (i) Whilst Vince’s views on staffing at HMRC is heart warming, as he isn’t responsible for it, they are not really relevant are they? (Was it a messy break up between you and the Lib Dems?)

    (ii) They are not scrapping it they are proposing to merge it presumably with other prosecuting authorities that report to the Attorney General.

    (iii) Your A-G figure of £15 billion is actually a figure from a National Fraud Authority report. This groups together evasion, hidden economy and criminal activity to come up with the £15.5 billion number. However, in the reports of Alexander’s speech it certainly appears that he separates criminal activity of £5 billion – see Bloomberg report here. As this is the exact same ratio as identified in the NFA report, my guess he was using the same figures but just chose to break them out.

    Ernie – that is loquacious even by your standards, I know you like a good rant but do War on Want have any backup for their numbers?

    😀 Me “ranting” ?! ………I thought it was the anti-Quangoists who were doing the ranting……..I was just offering some facts.

    Ask War on Want how they came to their figures. But if you don’t like those figures, then how about the Attorney General’s figures……..or don’t you like those either ?

    .

    (i) Whilst Vince’s views on staffing at HMRC is heart warming, as he isn’t responsible for it, they are not really relevant are they? (Was it a messy break up between you and the Lib Dems?)

    I have no idea what Vince Cable’s views on staffing at HMRC are. But I do know that he wants Revenue & Customs to find 25% in cuts from their budgets as part of the “spending review”.

    Whilst at the same time claiming that he is committed to “beefing-up resources” so that tax could be collected properly. Can’t you see the contradiction there ?

    Maybe you think that we can also “beef up resources” for the Armed Forces by demanding they cut their budgets by 25% too ?

    BTW, why do you call the Business Secretary “Vince” ? Are you a fellow Liberal Democrat ………or just a LibDem friendly Tory ?

    .

    (ii) They are not scrapping it they are proposing to merge it presumably with other prosecuting authorities that report to the Attorney General.

    So you don’t think ‘merging’ them with other department is downgrading them then ? So you see throwing the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office in with another department as “beefing up” them up ….. giving them more power and authority ?

    I see it as dismissing their importance. Why are they on the Daily Telegraph’s list ………is that a list of “vital” Quangos which the government is committed to ? I missed that point, it must have gone right over my head…..I thought it was a list of “useless” Quangos.

    .

    (iii) Your A-G figure of £15 billion is actually a figure from a National Fraud Authority report.

    Yes I know. I said it came from the Attorney General’s Office….the National Fraud Authority comes under the Attorney General’s Office. But what’s the problem……do you not trust the Attorney General’s Office as much as you trust Danny Alexander ?

    Finally, RE : “that is loquacious”. I am a manual building worker, so please learn to speak with commonly available words, and not obscure posh ones ……if you can manage that. Constantly googling words is I find tedious, and really shouldn’t be necessary. Thanks 🙂

    smell_it
    Member

    Maybe the work the ILF did will be taken up by a similar organisation?

    jesus f’ing wept, you would at least have hoped people that voted for this would have had some concept of what they were voting for…….perhaps you could explain to me how social capital will fill this void or perhaps identify who from the big society would like to spend their free time washing/feeding/toileting the severely disabled on a 7 days a week basis?

    I know a lot of these quango’s can go, I really do, but some of them…..

    Oh here you are mefty, a quick look at War on Want’s website reveals that the figure of £100bn lost through tax dodging apparently comes from the Tax Justice Network.

    TJN is an independent organisation launched in the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003. It is dedicated to high-level research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. We work to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens. Our objective is to encourage reform at the global and national levels. We are not aligned to any political party. Our network includes:

    * Academics;
    * Accountants;
    * Development organisations and NGOs;
    * Economists;
    * Faith groups;
    * Financial professionals;
    * Journalists;
    * Lawyers;
    * Public-interest groups;
    * Trade unions
    * Others

    http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=53

    zokes
    Member

    They are getting rid of organisations that don’t have an obvious or useful role, and will save a shitload of cash in doing so.

    I’d had said shutting down the Tory party would be a good place to start there then…

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon drain
    Subscriber

    @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).

    lodious
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    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.

    CaptJon
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon CHB
    Subscriber

    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.

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 111 total)

The topic ‘bye bye useless QUANGO's’ is closed to new replies.