Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review

bristol_pilot

The 'abolish' list covers all the cheap ones, some of which are not even funded primarily by taxpayers. Some of the ones on the 'retain' list are massively expensive.

bristol_pilot

carolt wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html

Now, sounds like a good idea in theory...but some of these organisations do important work. What will happen to it?

eg, two I know a little bit about - British Waterways (because my dad worked there as a lawyer after he 'retired'), and the General Teaching Council.

The former is in charge of all Britain's canals etc - not glamorous, but surely it is essential that we have a body in charge of assuring that our waterways work, are clean, aren't having stuff dumped in them, that the land around them is managed and not built on by random neighbours, etc etc. VV dull. But not sure who else will do this if they don't. Lots of people live on canals - who will ensure their needs are met if there is no oversight at all? Locks need to work, lockkkeepers to be paid, etc. The admin functions can't just 'vanish'.

Also, the General Teaching Council - in charge of striking off bad teachers, for example. Surely you need a Professional Body for teachers, just as you do for doctors and other responsible professions? You can get rid of the quango, but surely the work is still going to have to be done somewhere - now probably by people with no experience of the work.

Is there not a danger here of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here?

I can't speak for most of the quangos as I have no idea what most do - quite possibly the majority could be safely cut.

But does the list go too far?

Opinions, please.

The people who live on canals can darn well pay for them. People who use libraries can darn well pay a fee to borrow a book or let the library close...get my drift? Headteachers should also be able to sack bad teachers like any other boss! The government has barely begun to make the cuts that could be made, IMHO.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

We should also remember the other functions Quangos perform.

Chief executives and senior types never really get fired from a high up job, in a senior government department or whatever. Instead, they rotate amongst roles of an equally senior level.

And let's not forget that there's even a Quango responsible for recruiting them:

https://www.appointments.org.uk/

Rochdale_Pioneers

Surely its very simple - all Quangos are awful wastes of public money and do no work. Abolishing them will do nothing any harm because they serve no purpose.

I did chuckle when I heard that Eric Pickles has already agreed with Oik what he will cut. "I'm Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We'll cut those."

marklv

Quangos are simply bodies that perform tasks that would otherwise be done by local or central government. Simple as that. You can abolish the quangos but you can't necessarily remove the work that they do, as a lot of it is essential. This is really just about shifting budgets and staff, and making the government balance sheet look better. A lot of people will be made redundant but many more will have been offered generous severance schemes and left voluntarily well before October 20th.

marklv

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.

It's not just about behaviour, it's about respect. Teachers are no longer respected, and if you are not respected how on earth can you expect those over whom you have authority to do as you say? The modern culture is one of excessive freedom, libertarianism and even licence. The abolition of corporal punishment was what started the decline in standards. Without a stick you can't use the carrot properly. Kids need to know that they will be rewarded for good work and conduct, but they also need to know that they will be punished for evil behaviour and laziness.

neverdespairgirl

blueboy43 wrote: »

A little pedantic, but yes, taxpayers money funds bikeability.

Do we need Cycling England ?

Probably not - although someone in cycling must be doing something right as cycling is enjoying a relative boom.

Why does the fact that more people are cycling mean that someone in the govt / quango-land is doing anything right?

neverdespairgirl

Radiantsoul wrote: »

As Bob Crow said no-one is going to volunteer to pick up rubbish on a cold February.

Crow's wrong then, for a change.

My parents' village has a fortnightly rubbish-gathering throughout the year. February included.

neverdespairgirl

I'd have thought there could be consolidation, at the very least:

Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites
Advisory Committee on National Historic Ships

Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

Churches Conservation Trust

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

Railway Heritage Committee



Amalgamate that lot into one, they are similar groups.

Generali

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Why does the fact that more people are cycling mean that someone in the govt / quango-land is doing anything right?

Cycling has become quite fashionable. That will have something to do with it. Probably also public transport and roads being poor too.