Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review

amcluesent

A country that will be facing food and fuel shortages within 10 years can't begin to afford all these nice to have groups sucking money out the productive economy. All those going are a legacy of thinking that money grows on trees and Britain was 'rich' rather than building up debts.

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

WE have govt departments which report to ministers and thus the electorate.

We have local govt who report to elected councillors.

Why do we need any quangos? Surely if what they do needs doing they can do it within the normal government structure? I'm not passing judgement on what any of the quangos do merely noting that how they are structured must make them less accountable.

a good point

however maybe sometimes we need some sort of (semi) independant bodies

say
office of budget responsibility
judicial appointments
information commissioner
semi independant bank of england
drug advisory and scientific committees
.....

or maybe take the US approach and make almost every job a political appointment

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

Do that many live on canals? I can imagine a lot have a second home, but I doubt many live there as primary residence. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Should the taxpayer be paying out to protect this group? Should they be looked after by the councils like everyone else? Surely the local councils are responsible for rubbish dumping etc Not sure there is a need for a separate government funded quango.

General Teaching Council, sacking teachers? Do me a favour. Teachers don't get sacked. A few may be eased out by individual schools or LAs, but I doubt many are sacked.

Re the first point - you are wrong - my MIL used to live on the river (permanently), and I know others who live on canals. Given high London house prices, it's far more common than you would think. Permanent moorings are very sought-after.

Re your second point, as Generali has pointed out, the GTC do other things besides sacking teachers. Plus 18 is better than none, as would happen if there was no-one to do it. The figures should be higher not lower.

The_White_Horse

thousands of non-jobs. cut them all. I wouldn't even bother keeping the 350 they are. they should keep the most important 25 and that is it.

what a waste. this whole country is built on public sector waste.

labour wold have liked 100% of the people to work in public sector. they are imbecilic morons.

they have almost destroyed the country.

and then, when all this garbage is cut, labout will be saying how shameful it is that people are losing their jobs.

why has dave harnett not been sacked yet?????? he has just costs the tax payer 1.5bn. is that ok? for his 400k a year???? SACK HIM NOW.

and, most of all, we need a law saying NO ONE in the public sector can earn more that the PM. AND no one in local govt can earn more than 60% of the PM salary.

local scum earning twice that of the PM is outrageous.

carolt

mbga9pgf wrote: »

As for the teachers council, poor teachers can be sacked by their employer. Why teachers (a pretty mundane job tbh) need a "council" is beyond me; they are not similar to doctors and any sacked teacher will struggle to get a new job anyways due to lack of references.

I am hoping they also bin OFSTED and instead let teachers get on with their jobs, instead of the rafts of paperwork that currently is required to meet government "standards". Why not let them just teach?The extra cash saved from binning the quango and ofsted will generate cash to employ many, many more teachers. Class size is the single most important factor (assuming teaching standards are fine, which they are).

Gosh, it's obvious you're not a parent.

If you've ever been unhappy with any aspect of your child's school, believe me, you don't want OFSTED abolished. If you imagine that without it, all schools would work just fine, is pie in the sky. Teachers hate getting inspected - but without inspections, frankly some poor schools (or even OK ones) will be able to get away with murder - possibly literally in some cases. I've seen poor practice slip through current inspections - but at least the worst is picked up. Without them, sadly, the schools that don't care - and they certainly exist - will just continue to make the lives of thousands of children miserable and their education worthless.

Sad but true.

Education is too important not to be monitored at all.

silvercar

Re the first point - you are wrong - my MIL used to live on the river (permanently), and I know others who live on canals. Given high London house prices, it's far more common than you would think. Permanent moorings are very sought-after.

sought-after=expensive? so could pay towards their upkeep? I think that local authorities should be responsible for the waterways in their area as they are for roads.

Re your second point, as Generali has pointed out, the GTC do other things besides sacking teachers. Plus 18 is better than none, as would happen if there was no-one to do it.

No, headteachers could sack poor teachers. 18 in 40 years is no justification for keeping the quango.

Really2

bendix wrote: »

!!!!!! is the Darwin Advisory Committee when it's at home?
.

Cockney actors guild.

Alwight darwin.

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

sought-after=expensive? so could pay towards their upkeep? I think that local authorities should be responsible for the waterways in their area as they are for roads.



No, headteachers could sack poor teachers. 18 in 40 years is no justification for keeping the quango.

People who live on canals do pay for their upkeep. What do you think mooring fees are for? It's not free.

Should have been clearer - headteachers can sack poor teachers - it's having them struck off permanently they can't do - the sad fact is some people should never, ever be allowed in charge of children.

carolt

Just read the article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021739/Quango-cuts-177-bodies-to-be-scrapped-under-coalition-plans.html

and am absolutely hocked they'd consider getting rid of the British Council - would be absolute madness. Undoubtedly, the BC brings in many, many times its own cost through tourism, business etc it brings to the UK. I've taught abroad, and the BC has a huge presence esp in far-flung places, encouraging foreigners to come here and spend their dosh.

Ridiculous short-termism, to save a few quid now but causing huge longer-term losses.

mbga9pgf

carolt wrote: »

Gosh, it's obvious you're not a parent.

If you've ever been unhappy with any aspect of your child's school, believe me, you don't want OFSTED abolished. If you imagine that without it, all schools would work just fine, is pie in the sky. Teachers hate getting inspected - but without inspections, frankly some poor schools (or even OK ones) will be able to get away with murder - possibly literally in some cases. I've seen poor practice slip through current inspections - but at least the worst is picked up. Without them, sadly, the schools that don't care - and they certainly exist - will just continue to make the lives of thousands of children miserable and their education worthless.

Sad but true.

Education is too important not to be monitored at all.

If you think ofsted is about teaching standards, you are wrong.

They are more about enforcing
"Diversity"
"Education Plans"
"Health and Safety Paperwork"

very little of the ofsted visit focuses on actual teaching standards. If teachers were allowed to actually TEACH, as opposed to getting pecked to death with triv, perhaps we wouldnt have seen a fall in educational standards during the dark days of New Labour intervention.