Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review

Generali

GingerSte wrote: »

I also imagine that a lot of the work carried out by these quangos doesn't need doing at all. I've just spent five minutes trying to figure out what "The compact" (http://www.thecompact.org.uk/) does, but haven't figured it out yet.

I think I have and I'm pretty annoyed that I spent so many years paying their wages!

Generali

blueboy43 wrote: »

Funds bikeability - the modern day equivalent of the cycling proficiency test.

Should this be state funded ?

A yes from me.

Cycling England doesn't fund bikeability, the Treasury does using your taxes.

If you get rid of Cycling England you can keep bikeability under the auspices of local authorities or the Education Dept or the Department for Transport.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

I think I have and I'm pretty annoyed that I spent so many years paying their wages!

Give us a clue then, I couldn't figure it out.

bendix

Radiantsoul wrote: »

In many schools there just isn't the need. Kids are broadly well behaved. Sure in all schools there are some bad kids, and all kids play up occasionally. Additional focus discipline is probably not really necessary and diminishing returns are bound to set in.

I don't just mean discipline around behaviour. I mean something more. I mean a sense of personal responsibility; a sense that one has to work for reward, and that not everything is deserved now simply because their indulgent parents - urged on by indulgent societal standards - keep reinforcing to them that 'they're worth it' .

I mean intellectual discipline. I mean curiosity, not slack-jawed indifference.

I mean a sense of pride in themselves for real qualities, not arrogance based on a sense of entitlement.

I dunno - maybe I'm getting old and losing touch.

bendix

GingerSte wrote: »

II also imagine that a lot of the work carried out by these quangos doesn't need doing at all. I've just spent five minutes trying to figure out what "The compact" (http://www.thecompact.org.uk/) does, but haven't figured it out yet.

I.

Are you a bit dumb GingerSte? It's obvious what they do. They do . . . . ummmm . . this:

The Compact is all about better partnership working and creating better outcomes for individuals and local communities.
The key organisations associated with the Compact forward are:

• Compact Voice
• Compact Advocacy
• Commission for the Compact
• Office for Civil Society
• Local Government Association (LGA)

Established in 1998, the Compact is an agreement between Government and the voluntary and community sector in England. It recognises shared values, principles and commitments and sets out guidelines for how both parties should work together.
Although the Compact is not legally binding and is built on trust and mutual goodwill, its authority is derived from its endorsement by government and by the voluntary and community sector itself through its consultation process.





I hope that clears it up for you. I am to please. :A

turbobob

Hmm. According to that, The Compact Voice is chaired by Simon Blake (Chief Executive of Brook) and it is made up of an autonomous alliance of leading voluntary sector infrastructure organisations with national, regional and local reach, and who together play a representational role in engaging with Government and the Commissioner for the Compact on Compact issues.

Its like they have their own language, completely meaningless to anyone outside of their little organisation.

nicko33

turbobob wrote: »

Its like they have their own language, completely meaningless to anyone outside of their little organisation.

Hey, that vision or mission statement or whatever is it didn't come cheap. The whole executive team (and consultants) had to come up with that over a weekend (or two) at some exclusive spa retreat.

bendix

It's just weird, isn't it. I understand all the words on their website. I mean I know what each word means. And yet when it is all joined up, none of it means anything.

How do they write that stuff without bursting out laughing at what a jolly wheez the whole thing is?

ILW

Do they get government money for this? They seem a little coy about their funding.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

Give us a clue then, I couldn't figure it out.

They are meant to set out ways to improve how the state and charities interact with each other AFAICS at least.

I think the idea is that a charity and a part of Government set a 'compact' which I think is like a contract only not actually binding. The Government side makes a vague promise of funding and the charity side (which may well be wholly or mostly funded by taxpayers' money) makes a vague, non-binding promise to try to provide something in return.

It looks like a nice way for the People's Republic of Tower Hamlets to ensure that their Comrades that got them put up for election get something back.

Perhaps I'm being a little cynical. With this one I suspect I should be extremely cynical.