Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB - regarding your point about QUANGOs. Were you aware that in just the last 2 years Gordon Brown's Government has set up 40 of them....
They have mushroomed as never before and while there is a role for some of these they clearly are now out of hand. I do believe we are entering a new era of politics post expenses scandal and credit crunch and as a result there will be a massive change in the way Government does business. The big question is what role would QUANGOS play. I believe that they will be reduced significantly in their scope, role and funding.
There is an interesting article about them (not a long one) here:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/07/andrew-haldenby-.htmlGuest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Ah..I see Im spelling QUANGOs wrong there previously. Yes I think I agree with you there in that Gordon Brown does I admit seem to sidestep decisions and pass them on to yet another body to "look into it". However the oul Quango card is pulled out of the hat every so often by opposition leaders and it makes a headline or two but little else. So Mr Cameron doing it today in a big speech, which was promoted to the media beforehand, may not be terribly important in the overall scheme of things. Even Andrew Haldenby there in your highlighted article says they account for no more than 5% of our total budget.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I think that the most interesting issue here is not the one about potential costs savings but the whole reshaping of the way Government does business to be more 'localised' and accountable.
John Major was interviewed over the weekend where he pointed out that there is a vast potential to reduce the role of the State. He expects some fundamental re-thinking and the outcome could be the most reforming and radical reshaping of Government yet.
There are some interesting times ahead.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
More follow up PaulB on this QUANGO discussion. It is correct to say that previously political leaders have attacked these bodies in soundbites without seriously taking the axe to them.
Today DC went a lot farther than soundbites he has been quite specific as to what QUANGOS would be appropriate for and what should happen to the rest. It forms a detailed policy.
They are appropriate in these circumstances: (I quote)
Where technical operations looking beyond the political horizon are involved such as the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Bank of England
Where politically impartial decision are required about the distribution of taxpayers' money, such as the various academic Research Councils
Where there needs to be transparency over facts that cannot be distorted by politicians, such as the Office for National Statistics - and the proposed Office for Budget Responsibility whic David Cameron wants to establish.
He then said: "In all other circumstances, any task undertaken by government should be carried out directly through a department of state and the apparatus of accountable government."
The Shadow Cabinet (now and on beyond the election as a Cabinet) are to ask of each and every QUANGO it has:
Does this organisation need to exist?
If its functions are necessary, which of them should be carried out in a directly accountable way within the department?
And which, if any, should be carried out independently, at arm's length from political influence?
If there really is a need for an independent quango, how can we make sure it is as small as possible, operating with maximum efficiency, frugality and respect for taxpayers' money?
It all seems well thought out to me. A much more sophisticated approach to a mere 'bonfire of quangoes'....
Sid Pollitt
It seems to me that these would be crude cuts carried out by crude oiks. They know the cost of everything obviously [and the value of nothing]. When Cameron makes these crude announcements I'd reminded by another of the Tory party's great conference performers Kenny Everett. How long before Desperate Dave gets up and says Let's bomb Russia?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Crude - So that the attack line Labour HQ are suggesting then. Well to Labour spendthrifts who would rather totally bankrupt the whole country than spend wisely it may seem crude. The truth is that wiser heads in Labour are agreeing with ourselves that cuts have to come whatever. DC is far from suggesting a crude approach which would be represented by a simplistic 'bonfire of quangoes', he has set out a sensible method of establishing the worthwhile from the chaff.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Not surprizingly BARRYW you have missed both HOWARDS and PAULB com,ments.
I'm pleased now there is a clear devide between wanting a NHS service under the Labour party
or massive cuts to the NHS as quoted by barryyw by the tories.
THERE is no doubt as howard says that senior managers will survive in these
vicious cuts by the tories
The NHS does need a revamp
but it does NOT need massive cuts by the tories
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - I am saying 20% cuts are needed, real cuts. The Conservayive Party policy is unfortunately more timid, they are saying basically the same as Labour with the only difference is that Labour are trying to pretend that their cuts, spelt out in the budget, dont exist.
You and I will never agree on the limits to the power of the State. You will always want a high spending high taxing high borrowing, high interference Government. I want exactly the opposite and the smaller size we get Government down to and off our backs the better for everyone.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
with respect barry, you are missing the point, many of us are of the opinion that the cuts will be arbitrary.
should 20% savings be made and point of use services saved, then we would all be happy.
the truth is that the politicos that make these decisions do not use the nhs, except for photocalls, and do not understand how the cuts will affect the majority of the population
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are wrong there howard. DC himself is proof of that. At the end of the day it is an inefficient service that has had money thrown at it for too little bang per buck. At the end of the day you just have to look for more effficiency towards better service not just more cash. The NHS, despite the sterling efforts of dedicated staff, just is not up to the standards of efficiency and service of so many continental health services.
Alison found even on a little Greek island that the accident service was far more efficient than over here, in and out, X-rays, plaster, no waiting at all....
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
maybe if all private health service was scraped and all moneys spent on unblocking wards and services the nhs would be better of.lots of cases of money talks when it comes to operations,this constituits as que jumping in my mind.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Brian what you are talking about there is actually spending more money on the NHS....not cutting back. If you cut out its private contracting then the NHS itself would have to do those extra bits as it were, and no doubt this would cost more. The private aspect in some cases was utilised to save money.
BarryW you are probably right that it is to some extent inefficient but it gets there. What worries me is that cuts are not easy to implement without destroying the very core. It gives good service in many areas. Ive had good service recently with my floundering right arm for example and in our local clinic. Whether they could have achieved this with a person less in the process or something I dont know...but the politicians answer would be to cut out this local service entirely and make me go to Canterbury or heavens even Ashford. This is how politicians do cuts...it saves money alright but kills the quality of the service for people who are ill.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
paulb,what i was getting at was if private and public wards where utalized and the management and trusts where dispenced with,bringing back matron/sister run hospitals the money saved could be better used at the hospitals instead of lineing fat cats pockets.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Brian - what you are suggesting is a huge extra cost burden to the NHS. People such as myself with private medical insurance (paid for on top of my tax and NI) save the NHS £billions as year.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,if you want reform and cost cutting its the only to go,otherwise the whole system will bankrupt it self and drag the private sector down with it.by cutting the nhs trusts and managers and putting front line nurseing staff in control you save up to 30% savings.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not by getting rid of the private health sector you wont. Getting rid of layers of management, yes by all means.
Sid Pollitt
Yes, but no, but yes. If the raving looney party get their way and axe these quangos they'll pass the bits the quangos do that are [in their jaundiced opinion] of some worth to the government to carry out. But wont that crude use of the axe then make the government bigger? I thought they wanted a 'smaller' government, are they confused or thick?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Just who is thick - QUANGOS are a part of Government, set up by Government, paid for by taxpayers, carrying out functions of Government, some useful but some not. Passing the more useful functions back directly to Government, instead of having them done by proxy, is to re-establish democratic accountability over these functions and has no effect on the size and role of Government as it just gets rid of middlemen. It is the ones dispensed with, hopefully a great many, that will help towards smaller Government.
Sid Pollitt
If you've got a big government and you add more responsibilities you'll make it bigger not smaller. Basic maths.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Except when these responsibilities are the Goverments anyway, just being dealt with by an intermediary unaccountable to the public, then no difference is made, except the functions then become accountable, basic common sense.