So when the government are considering proposals for, say, air pollutants produced by industry, they will rely not on independent scientific advice but that provided in house?

And this will not be affected in any way by industry lobbyists?

Thinking Turner and Newall scenarios where industry controlled MP’s put aside public good for industry good.

I personally think that independent advisors would be preferable in situations such as this.

Obviously I could be wrong but I get more cynical as I get older.

As mefty said nothing much will change a lot of the expertise will be brought in-house to a government department. I wonder what effect that will have on the labour related overheads.

IanMunro – Member

Anyone know why British Waterways is for the chop, but the Broads Authority is on the untouchable list?

Canals mainly in Labour areas, Broads a tory area?

mefty – Member

As far as QUANGOs are concerned, the aim of the review is to see if there was anything gained by them being independent from government or whether they were providing a technical role that cannot be better carried out by government. If not, then they activities will be rolled into government departments.

What? Many of them were created by the previous tory government because they would be more efficient outside of the Government.

I never thought I would hear mefty extol Public Sector as a beacon of cheapness and efficiency

The plan for us dangerousbeans is to be moved wholesale into the department of health, read into that what you will about independance.

Least it will be easier for them to shelve your findings if they don’t agree with policy.

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

LOL.

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

True!

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.

http://www.savecyclingengland.org/

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 🙄

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?

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.

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.

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…

The eggs in one basket agency?

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.

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.

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 🙂

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

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…