I suppose another angle would be to ask the question: What does this quango COST people?
In other words, not so much about the budgets they have (paid via taxpayers), but as they do their roles, what else is it costing people or businesses affected by it.
HMRC would probably need to be exempt (apart from vast simplifications) - as its role is literally to cost people money!
But as you said, most of this will come down to politics and policy. Another example is Ofcom. All I see is it interfering with American companies, thinking it has any jurisdiction at all, re the Online Safety Act.
My sense is that it is automatically, then, not fit for purpose. Sack everyone and shutter it.
But a look at its functions shows vastly more important things it could be spending its time on, rather than trivial nonsense it shouldn't even get a say in (eg online 'safety'):
Looking beyond the bonfire of quangos slop the two areas for cuts are Welfare and all Net Zero policies but who has the guts and knowledge to tackle these?
Charlotte Gill has a good substuck about all the weird and wonderful (hmm) arts payouts.
Not billions, but if you start from someone and tighten up funding, it all helps.
Much of their funding is linked to DEI policies, as well. They have to comply.
What about the Charities, NGO, like, ' Care for Calais' why fo the government give money to Charities, tgst are encouraging illegal migration and dangerous crossings.
I don't see how that fits with government policies.
Charity Commission getting more powers, will they use them
May be already in place and be encouraged by a new government.
I think they should look at what is there,see if it can be altered. Change policy and provision within before, scrapping it, use the shell of it, to their own advantage.
Tend to agree overall, but the impression is that many of these quangos are lax, inefficient and ineffective. Where lies the responsibility for Ofwat's failures, for example? One appreciates this is policy (targeting, enforcement, accountability) and management (sinecures, siloing, supervision), rather than 'waste' per se, but the results - or absence thereof - are similar
The best lesson to be learned from Labour is clear when comparing their manifesto to reality.
How much would the public have approved of Labour if it details had been in their manifesto?
Removing trial by jury?
Taking pensioners fuel allowance off them?
Mirroring the EU laws and paying them vast sums of money for nothing?
Increasing taxes?
Increasing migration?
The response of people to parties in government is ‘they always do that’ That’s OK then.
Restore may be amateurs but they aren’t liars (yet) and voters will give them leeway the other parties have had for decades.
Voters don’t want detail after detail - after all half of it won’t happen anyway.
Voters want good intention - the rest comes in when parties in power with all the apparatus of government available to them, make it happen - if they are genuine.
I don't want to argue with you, Pete, but on the basis of your last paragraph, there is nowhere to turn to cut costs and save money. So what does ANY government do? It is a poisoned chalice and there is no remedy to the poison, it seems. On the basis of your argument here, we may as well all give up, go home and prepare to die.
Costs are important and if leaders as useless as Labour can find savings you can bet there’ll be many more to be had. Task public sector management with taking 10% of their costs out over a two year period. If they can’t do it they can’t manage so fire them. Secondly creating and keeping a plethora of NGOs like the unnecessary football regulator as an example sends a shocking message to potential investors in UKplc. Their removal messages that were open for business.
I suppose another angle would be to ask the question: What does this quango COST people?
In other words, not so much about the budgets they have (paid via taxpayers), but as they do their roles, what else is it costing people or businesses affected by it.
HMRC would probably need to be exempt (apart from vast simplifications) - as its role is literally to cost people money!
But as you said, most of this will come down to politics and policy. Another example is Ofcom. All I see is it interfering with American companies, thinking it has any jurisdiction at all, re the Online Safety Act.
My sense is that it is automatically, then, not fit for purpose. Sack everyone and shutter it.
But a look at its functions shows vastly more important things it could be spending its time on, rather than trivial nonsense it shouldn't even get a say in (eg online 'safety'):
- TV/radio broadcasting regs
- Telecoms & Internet oversight (eg clear pricing, fair customer treatment, etc)
- Postal services regs
- Radio spectrum management
- Consumer protection
- Market competition and enforcement (THIS should be the major one, breaking up monopolies)
Looking beyond the bonfire of quangos slop the two areas for cuts are Welfare and all Net Zero policies but who has the guts and knowledge to tackle these?
But they are not Quangos. Which is Pete's point. They are policy points.
I agree.
Charlotte Gill has a good substuck about all the weird and wonderful (hmm) arts payouts.
Not billions, but if you start from someone and tighten up funding, it all helps.
Much of their funding is linked to DEI policies, as well. They have to comply.
What about the Charities, NGO, like, ' Care for Calais' why fo the government give money to Charities, tgst are encouraging illegal migration and dangerous crossings.
I don't see how that fits with government policies.
Charity Commission getting more powers, will they use them
May be already in place and be encouraged by a new government.
I think they should look at what is there,see if it can be altered. Change policy and provision within before, scrapping it, use the shell of it, to their own advantage.
Great point.
Tend to agree overall, but the impression is that many of these quangos are lax, inefficient and ineffective. Where lies the responsibility for Ofwat's failures, for example? One appreciates this is policy (targeting, enforcement, accountability) and management (sinecures, siloing, supervision), rather than 'waste' per se, but the results - or absence thereof - are similar
The best lesson to be learned from Labour is clear when comparing their manifesto to reality.
How much would the public have approved of Labour if it details had been in their manifesto?
Removing trial by jury?
Taking pensioners fuel allowance off them?
Mirroring the EU laws and paying them vast sums of money for nothing?
Increasing taxes?
Increasing migration?
The response of people to parties in government is ‘they always do that’ That’s OK then.
Restore may be amateurs but they aren’t liars (yet) and voters will give them leeway the other parties have had for decades.
Voters don’t want detail after detail - after all half of it won’t happen anyway.
Voters want good intention - the rest comes in when parties in power with all the apparatus of government available to them, make it happen - if they are genuine.
Aspiration (and fraud) wins elections.
Perspiration wins sympathy (sometimes).
I don't want to argue with you, Pete, but on the basis of your last paragraph, there is nowhere to turn to cut costs and save money. So what does ANY government do? It is a poisoned chalice and there is no remedy to the poison, it seems. On the basis of your argument here, we may as well all give up, go home and prepare to die.
Costs are important and if leaders as useless as Labour can find savings you can bet there’ll be many more to be had. Task public sector management with taking 10% of their costs out over a two year period. If they can’t do it they can’t manage so fire them. Secondly creating and keeping a plethora of NGOs like the unnecessary football regulator as an example sends a shocking message to potential investors in UKplc. Their removal messages that were open for business.