We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Bonfire day for the Quangos! 192 abolished, 289 reformed
Comments
-
Can anyone explain this particular entry to me?
I especially loved the stated reason for keeping it:
Restraint Accreditation Board
Retain - Retain on the grounds of transparency
:question:
Seems straightforward and reasonable to me. AIUI the Restraint Accreditation board advises on what equipment should be used to restrain people in custody, presumably to ensure safety and to prevent restraint degenerating into torture.
The government apparently believes that this is better done by someone independant rather than by those wishing to do the restraining.0 -
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0
-
Sir_Humphrey wrote: »Actually, we had a similar reaction in our office today.
In practise, this will mean making sure that the vintage stuff served up to visiting Presidents and Royalty is up to scratch. I cannot imagine it would have more than a tiny handful of staff.
The vintage wine will doubtless continue to be purchased as I cannot see an occasion where a key ally is served Blue Nun.
People can make jokes but as SirH points out, it's a job that needs to be done and paid for.
Is it more efficiently better done by an office within the government presumable managed by a senior civil servant (you could hardly trust this to an office junior) or by a separate body which perhaps can more easily get occasional informal and formal advice from external recognised experts?
I dont know the answer, but ISTM the government is in danger of expensively destroying some very useful organisations.
I dont see how moving the work (and much of the Qangos' work will still need to be done) into the civil service will improve accountability. I would have thought it would make it easier to shield the incompetent from scrutiny.0 -
I dont see how moving the work (and much of the Qangos' work will still need to be done) into the civil service will improve accountability. I would have thought it would make it easier to shield the incompetent from scrutiny.
I think it depends on the body. The list published is actually a list of non-departmental public bodies, not Quangoes. Quangoes are defined as bodies which are not staffed by civil servants, and which are answerable only to the Secretary of State.
In some cases this might be appropriate (e.g. for advisory bodies), but in other cases it was a mechanism for ministers to remove parliamentary scrutiny from controversial areas (such as redevelopment of the Thames Gateway).Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »the audit commission is not part of the civil service though, so presumably they are just entitled to statutory redundancy pay.
There was a piece on the Audit Commission on PM yesterday where they said how much they estimated the redundancy costs were, unfotunately I don't remember- maybe someone else was listening too? Anyway, it also pointed out that they have signed contracts on numerous buildings which they can't get out of. Add into this the fact that all the functions are now going to be paid for by councils to pirvate company's (which have such a great track record of working with the state), then you begin to wonder what the point of abolishing it was...0 -
There was a piece on the Audit Commission on PM yesterday where they said how much they estimated the redundancy costs were, unfotunately I don't remember- maybe someone else was listening too? Anyway, it also pointed out that they have signed contracts on numerous buildings which they can't get out of. Add into this the fact that all the functions are now going to be paid for by councils to pirvate company's (which have such a great track record of working with the state), then you begin to wonder what the point of abolishing it was...
The Big Four accounting firms gave a large amount of money and facilities to the Conservative Party during the election...
Hmm.Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
Sir_Humphrey wrote: »Actually, we had a similar reaction in our office today.
In practise, this will mean making sure that the vintage stuff served up to visiting Presidents and Royalty is up to scratch. I cannot imagine it would have more than a tiny handful of staff.
The vintage wine will doubtless continue to be purchased as I cannot see an occasion where a key ally is served Blue Nun.
Can any of these dunderheads really tell ?.
As long as they get blootered and grope some Latvian waitress will they really care ?."An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0 -
Sir_Humphrey wrote: »The Big Four accounting firms gave a large amount of money and facilities to the Conservative Party during the election...
Hmm.
Patricia Hewitt, ex Andersen Consulting.
They were backing the winner, they always do."An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0 -
Seems straightforward and reasonable to me. AIUI the Restraint Accreditation board advises on what equipment should be used to restrain people in custody, presumably to ensure safety and to prevent restraint degenerating into torture.
The government apparently believes that this is better done by someone independant rather than by those wishing to do the restraining.
Well thank you for telling me.
I had no idea we did so much restraining that we needed a whole department just to accredit different types of it.
Well, you live and learn...0 -
Well thank you for telling me.
I had no idea we did so much restraining that we needed a whole department just to accredit different types of it.
Well, you live and learn...
Numerous backbenchers will be well versed in such matters.......:whistle:"An arrogant and self-righteous Guardian reading tvv@t".
!!!!!! is all that about?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards