138 replies to this topic

[exxile]

The new coalition made a very small start on dismantling uneccessary Quangos today, promising to prune the cost of them by £600m this year, or less than 1%.

The number of people employed by quangos at the latest count, which was 3 years ago, was 714,000, so you can be sure it is a lot higher than that today. This does not include LAs, fire services, police forces or NHS trusts. The cost of quangos in that year was £64bn, so probably closer to £100bn now. This represents about £3,500 for every household in the UK.

Here's a small sample, showing how many people they employed in 2007:
HM Land Registry.................................................... 8,593
Arts Council England...................................................872
Big Lottery Fund..................................................... .1,103
Tate Gallery............................................................ 1,150
TOTE..................................................................... .4,475
BBC.......................................................................23,037
Student Loans Co.................................................... 1,236
Learning & Skills Council........................................... 3,741
National College for School Leadership...................... ...235
Ofsted................................................................... ..2,238
British Wool Marketing Board........................................236
British Potato Council................................................... 49
Carbon Trust............................................................. 127
Environment Agency, England..................................13,114
Pesticides Safety Directorate................................... ....810
Rural Payments Agency.......................................... .4,467
Ofcom........................................................................789
DVLA...................................................................... 6,487
Financial Services Authority......................................2,659
Child Support Agency.............................................11,020

I think if was one of the 49 employees at the British Potato Council, I might be thinking of a career change. Check out one of their several useful websites:
http://www.lovechips.co.uk/
...where you can get a Chip Tune ringtone, endorsed by Keith Chegwin.

[a j cougar]

The new coalition made a very small start on dismantling uneccessary Quangos today, promising to prune the cost of them by £600m this year, or less than 1%.

The number of people employed by quangos at the latest count, which was 3 years ago, was 714,000, so you can be sure it is a lot higher than that today. This does not include LAs, fire services, police forces or NHS trusts. The cost of quangos in that year was £64bn, so probably closer to £100bn now. This represents about £3,500 for every household in the UK.

Here's a small sample, showing how many people they employed in 2007:
HM Land Registry.................................................... 8,593
Arts Council England...................................................872
Big Lottery Fund..................................................... .1,103
Tate Gallery............................................................ 1,150
TOTE..................................................................... .4,475
BBC.......................................................................23,037
Student Loans Co.................................................... 1,236
Learning & Skills Council........................................... 3,741
National College for School Leadership...................... ...235
Ofsted................................................................... ..2,238
British Wool Marketing Board........................................236
British Potato Council................................................... 49
Carbon Trust............................................................. 127
Environment Agency, England..................................13,114
Pesticides Safety Directorate................................... ....810
Rural Payments Agency.......................................... .4,467
Ofcom........................................................................789
DVLA...................................................................... 6,487
Financial Services Authority......................................2,659
Child Support Agency.............................................11,020

I think if was one of the 49 employees at the British Potato Council, I might be thinking of a career change. Check out one of their several useful websites:
http://www.lovechips.co.uk/
...where you can get a Chip Tune ringtone, endorsed by Keith Chegwin.

What if they save or generate more money than they cost?

I'm sure they don't all do that, but maybe some do?

[RP London]

never been 100% on this but what makes a quango a quango?

[Ex-Kirkholt]

What if they save or generate more money than they cost?

I'm sure they don't all do that, but maybe some do?

Ooooh - don't bring logic in here !

[exxile]

What if they save or generate more money than they cost?

I'm sure they don't all do that, but maybe some do?

Which of those in that list do you think would save more money than they cost?

Several of them 'generate more than they cost'. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for example. They don't have a great deal of competition though.

[gingerjon]

never been 100% on this but what makes a quango a quango?

It's a quango when you're against it.

Tate calls itself a Non Departmental Public Body by the way.

Linky dink

If I'm reading its accounts right, 25% (ish) of its income is from the government.

[RP London]

It's a quango when you're against it.

Tate calls itself a Non Departmental Public Body by the way.

Linky dink

If I'm reading its accounts right, 25% (ish) of its income is from the government.

this is what i was thinking.. i would have thught the DVLA was quite important and needed (maybe not to the extent it is) and that they would actually just be a governemtn department (or similar) instead of aquango..

i also thought the BBC was a Corporation rather than a Quango

arent the FSA and Ofcom regulatory boards?

[Leeds Wire]

never been 100% on this but what makes a quango a quango?

A quango receives funding directly from government but, in theory, acts independently of it (as opposed to simply implementing government policy).

My experience of dealing with them is that there can never be complete autonomy when the government is determining year on year how much these bodies receive in order to fulfil their duties, therefore the whole concept is a bit flawed in that respect.

The Tories are saying that they can make savings, but any fool can do that. The clever bit is saving money whilst not cutting back on the services that these bodies provide.

[West Country Eagle]

Instead of central government being grotesquely swollen, powers will be passed to local councils, who will then become massively swollen.

Oh, and we're going to get elected police chiefs. That'll mean more red tape and a few more jobs for people.

They taketh with one hand and giveth with the other.

I.E NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE.

It was the Tories who started all this quango business anyway - Labour just took it to the next level (and the next level after that, and the next level after that)

[PC]

Instead of central government being grotesquely swollen, powers will be passed to local councils, who will then become massively swollen.

Oh, and we're going to get elected police chiefs. That'll mean more red tape and a few more jobs for people.

They taketh with one hand and giveth with the other.

Great, political policing, just what we need. Not!

More academies as well. So more schools outside of LEA control, and if Cameron thinks their going to be run by local parents, he's in cloud cuckoo land.

As someone who works with my wife has said, he's going to tax us more (probably) for working a full week, and then expect to run local services in our free time. I can't see that happening. All this devolving power to local groups will do is privatise local services.

[West Country Eagle]

Great, political policing, just what we need. Not!

More academies as well. So more schools outside of LEA control, and if Cameron thinks their going to be run by local parents, he's in cloud cuckoo land.

As someone who works with my wife has said, he's going to tax us more (probably) for working a full week, and then expect to run local services in our free time. I can't see that happening. All this devolving power to local groups will do is privatise local services.

Yep, privatisation by the back door. Allowing companies to run schools is also a bit dubious - what have they got to gain? Obviously funding from government, but what else? Private running of state schools, for profit, simply cannot lead to greater school standards and, crucially, a better education for kids. These things shouldn't be run for a profit - not state schools, at least. We have the private school sector for that, where you can effectively buy your child a massive head start in life if you're rich enough.

Giving teachers more control over the curriculum is not a bad idea - certainly, all the teachers/education workers I know complain about the previous government's obsession with meeting targets in literacy and numeracy and testing kids. Their argument is that kids are not getting a real education - all round education, I mean - and if the government's changes help achieve this, that can only be good.

The idea to allow anyone to set up a school is a ludicrous one. Meddling parents, who usually know very little about education (as opposed to education professionals, who do), setting up schools is a dangerous and, in my opinion, stupid idea.

[ckn]

Instead of central government being grotesquely swollen, powers will be passed to local councils, who will then become massively swollen.

To be honest, it's the opposite really in terms of swollen local government. Some of the councils round here are seriously struggling under the cuts they're having to make, the central government have been cutting local council grants year after year yet refusing permission to raise council tax above the centrally imposed cap.

For example, my local district council has to make a 14% cut in overall budgets this year despite being comfortably in the lowest 1/5th of English council tax rates; their government grant was cut massively but they cant recoup the difference in council tax rises to even anywhere near the national average due to central government caps. Then there's the government commitments the councils have to honour such as ring-fenced education funding, this means that the council has to make even greater real-term cuts to the non ring-fenced areas such as mental health and elderly care, these seriously harmful cuts then get blamed on the councils, if anyone in the media actually cares about these things.

[PC]

Yep, privatisation by the back door. Allowing companies to run schools is also a bit dubious - what have they got to gain? Obviously funding from government, but what else? Private running of state schools, for profit, simply cannot lead to greater school standards and, crucially, a better education for kids. These things shouldn't be run for a profit - not state schools, at least. We have the private school sector for that, where you can effectively buy your child a massive head start in life if you're rich enough.

There's an academy near me here in the 'Boro. It's run by the Vardy Foundation, which is essentially a private enterprise. I know of quite a few teachers who left there due to some the practices they were being forced to work under. The Vardy foundation have some interesting views on religion as well. Put it this way, if you were wearing a Flying Spaghetti Monster shirt, I would imagine you'd get sent home. Richard Dawkins also raises similar issues with them in the 'God Delusion'. We're going to see more of the same now. Schools run by vested interest parties does not, for me, lead to a better standard of education.

Don't get me started on elected police chiefs.

[Wendall]

The problem is if we get rid of all these quangos, especially those in the regions then we end up with more influence from London on our daily lives and all the councils fighting for the money instead of a regional body delegating where to spend.

Its just an ill thought political statement by the Tories to rid everything that was Labour created if you ask me.

[CrushersForever]

I think if was one of the 49 employees at the British Potato Council, I might be thinking of a career change. Check out one of their several useful websites:
http://www.lovechips.co.uk/

"You know, the youth of today just don't eat enough chips. Saturated fat is what made this country great."

[exxile]

"You know, the youth of today just don't eat enough chips. Saturated fat is what made this country great."

Well, saturated fat, plus hard tack, weevils and lemons.

Edited by exxile, 25 May 2010 - 08:04 PM.

[exxile]

Its just an ill thought political statement by the Tories to rid everything that was Labour created if you ask me.

Do you think it is good use of public money to have 1,700 people working at CAFCASS? How about the 11,000 working in the 'Child Support Agency' (part of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) which has an expenditure of over half a billion pounds per year?

[Steve May]

never been 100% on this but what makes a quango a quango?

Depends on the levelof autonomy from government.

If it's a totally autonomous non governmental organisation then it's technically a Tango.

Fact.

[Trojan]

Instead of central government being grotesquely swollen, powers will be passed to local councils, who will then become massively swollen.

Oh, and we're going to get elected police chiefs. That'll mean more red tape and a few more jobs for people.

They taketh with one hand and giveth with the other.

I.E NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE.

It was the Tories who started all this quango business anyway - Labour just took it to the next level (and the next level after that, and the next level after that)

I'm not really sure who started it, quango is such a nasty sounding word that it's good to be against them. In 1979 the Tories were against them and promised to abolish them. As you say nothing really changed, except of course that (in 1979 anyway) instead of the seats on quangos being equally divided between the parties, they became packed with Tories. I'm sure they're probably packed with Labour people now. But as I remember saying in 1979, when the pendelum swings the other way the Tories won't like it - and they don't.

[exxile]

I'm not really sure who started it, quango is such a nasty sounding word that it's good to be against them. In 1979 the Tories were against them and promised to abolish them. As you say nothing really changed, except of course that (in 1979 anyway) instead of the seats on quangos being equally divided between the parties, they became packed with Tories. I'm sure they're probably packed with Labour people now. But as I remember saying in 1979, when the pendelum swings the other way the Tories won't like it - and they don't.

In fact, 10.2% of all appointees to SAPB boards 'declared a political interest'
5.5% Labour
2.1% Conservative
1.0% Liberal Democrat

As for 'chairs'
13.4% Labour
1.6% Conservative

Quango 'chairs', who meet their boards about 12 times are year, are paid £49,800 on average.

The chair of the Financial Services Authority was paid £487,000.