Has the bonfire gone out?
Curiously, Tory HQ are now pouring cold water on the bonfire of the quangos.
They have called to say that Mr Cameron's speech was not, as I reported, called "Bonfire of the Quangos" but called instead "People Power - Reforming Quangos".
What's more they point to their leader saying: "it would be far too simplistic for me to stand here and announce some kind of 'Bonfire of the Quangos.' People have heard that kind of talk many times before, and seen little to show for it."
I am happy to correct this whilst merely noting that the invitation to his speech read: "Reform invites you to: Bonfire of the Quangos". Also, the quote above was not in the speech extracts issued in advance and may have been written after my first blog post.
Incidentally, on the substance of the issue, one senior Tory has called with an interesting question about his leader's speech. Isn't the Tory plan to de-politicise the NHS and have it run by an independent board the creation of the biggest quango of them all?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just shows why all parties cannot afford to get these cuts wrong and how difficult it will be to implement them
But implement them they must which is why the whole process of spending cuts has to be debated openly with the present state of the nation's finances made public.
Financial forecasts should err on the side of pessimism as they are only guesstimates anyway and that always leaves room to manouvre
Only then will we see which party can be the most creative and daring and deserve our vote at the next election. That's if they really want to win it by then.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
"Also, the quote above was not in the speech extracts issued in advance and may have been written after my first blog post."
And it may not have been. Nothing like a bit of second-sourced reported fact, is there? And that speculation certainly isn't.
See you in the pub.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#3 virtualsilver
it makes a refreshing change form the usual newlabour line that everything they announce is - the right thing to do.
If I heard Ed Balls say that phrase once I heard him say it a milllions times abut the Haringay shame. How can anyhting that has been done by that inept council be the right thing to do. They should all be fired.
Cameron has tapped into the public's desire not to be preached to. Pure and simple and newlabour don't like it because they have all the answers
Call an election
Complain about this comment
Would it not be better all round if politicians did not pre-release quotes from speeches and journalists waited until a speech was delivered before commenting on them? Then there would be no question as to what had been said, or whether elements had been changed to dodge early criticism.
Politicians should be accountable for what they actually say to the electorate, and we should not have this ridiculous culture of pre-announcements and deliberate leaks. I don't care whether the chicken or the egg makes the first move, I just hope someone does.
Complain about this comment
Gosh U-Turnitus is spreading from nuLabour to the Tories!
Definition U-Turnitus
Anounce a policy/sheach one day and the same or following day deny that you said it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"independent board"?
What does "independent" mean in the context of quangos?
Is it independent from political appointees, financial and budget independence, policy and management independence, perhaps the freedom to hire and fire?
Does all this give the PM too much opaque influence and power over the quangos?
Whatever it is called, however it is cut and diced, if it take the public's money, it should be a public service and not serving a few. Enough resources must given to carry out the responsibilities and accountabilities must match the responsibilities and the resources used.
Complain about this comment
The problem with this whole daft topic is that you need groups and departments to run things.
What you call them and how independent they are is irrelevant, they will still exist under which ever system - they HAVE to.
The white hall mandarins know this and just change the letter head as they are asked.
It is like complaining that a food is full of chemicals and is therefore bad. EVERYTHING is chemicals - that is the science.
EVERYTHING has to be managed somehow - that is the politics. If politicians were as honest as Cameron claims he is, maybe he would admit to that fact.
Oh, I forgot, he is a politician. Why tell the truth when misleading the public gets you more votes?
Complain about this comment
Neither here nor there Nick. Isn't the fact of the matter that at least the Conservatives are being honest about having to make cuts (not as detailed as I would like, but it's a start) and are proactively starting to talk about areas where they can be made? Contrast that with 'spending will increase year on year', 'Labour Investment...blah, blah', 'No more boom and bust' etc, etc, etc....
Start questioning the Government, Nick, they are in a position, for a few more months at least, to do something whereas the Tories can't do a bean, no matter what they would like to do. I can't actually think of a thing that the Govt has said it is going to do NOW, as opposed to leaving it until 2010. The Labour Party seems to be taking the attitude of 'why put something off 'til tomorrow when you can put it off 'til next year'....presumably when they won't have to (or be in a position to)do anything anyway.
What's the betting that at PMQ's on Weds, Gordon still trots out the same old lines about 'Do nothing Tories' & 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts'. Surely someone in the Cabinet has the bottle to tell him that nobody, absolutely nobody, believes that guff??
Complain about this comment
There was a story.
Which wasn't one after all.
Now that's the story.
Complain about this comment
You should listen to what Cameron actually said (on the BBC this morning!): it is clear he has no intention of a clean sweep of Quangos, he said loud and clear that some are essential; others not so and they will go...
Maybe he should have a REAL bonfire in the original sense...a BONEfire, of New Labours dead and dry bones and to ward off their evil spirits!
Complain about this comment
"Also, the quote above was not in the speech extracts issued in advance and may have been written after my first blog post."
Presumably, therefore, we can credit Nick Robinson with re-writing Tory policy?
Alternatively, of course, perhaps you're wrong, and it just wasn't in the extracts issued in advance?
I guess your theory just makes for a better story.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Shame you didn't listen to Today this morning. Cameron made exactly this point under questioning from Humphries - the intention is to get some savings but more importantly to get more democracy with politicians making policy not unelected bureaucrats.
Complain about this comment
Interesting one on the NHS. I guess it would effectively be a quango under this setup.
However, I have experienced the chaos that is the NHS first hand (one of post University temp jobs was in a back office function in a hospital), and there is no way there are enough politicians in Westminster to run it well. I think the NHS more or less has to be run by an independent body, BUT it should be an accountable one, and driven by government.
Complain about this comment
All this reinforces my depressing view that, whilst most of us will be delighted to see the back of Gordon Brown's disaster of a Government, few of us are in the least bit impressed by the Tory alternative.
The Tories are still doing the political equivalent of dancing around the handbag. No clear understanding of the scale of the mess we're in; no clear strategy for dealing aggressively with the economic war zone they'll enter the day after the election; the usual political waffle-speak that any of them can get away with in "economic peacetime", but hopeless, uninspiring and positively dangerous in "economic wartime".
Cameron and the Tories need to get a grip, raise their game and connect with the British people's desire for firm, decisive political leadership aimed at rolling back the state and cutting public sector costs by at least 10% ... and more like 20% or 30% truth be known. Use Canada as the Case Study.
It's easy Dave: just pipe up and tell us you're going to cut the number of quangos by one-third for starters. The British people will trip over themselves to vote Conservative. And do you really think the state will collapse with one-third of its quangos abolished? I doubt it very much.
Out here in the real world, if a business was faced with the type of financial disaster looming for the UK economy, only bold measures would stand any hope of turning around the situation. Please stop pfaffing about.
Complain about this comment
Just in case - the term "Bonfire Of The Quangos" was first used by one James Gordon Brown, before the 1997 Putsch; he noted that he was going to put, I think, 40%, to the torch.
I gather we now have over 40% more; of course, they are a prefect vehicle for Brown's contempt for the democratic process, in that they are unelected and unaccountable, and devour more and more of our money every year.
Which, in an economy in which tax receipts are now insufficient even to fund all welfare requirements, is not healthy.
Complain about this comment
Nick, one of the many hazards for journalist who speculate rather than report...
"Check against actual delivery"
Perhaps that would have been better to have called this blog!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A bonfire might be good but a reform with full accountability might be better along with parity on salaries and benefits, but accountability is definitely the most important, and some of the roles in quangos should be cut immediately - like the plethora of prs.
Maybe Nick got it right all along, he usually does.
Complain about this comment
18. moraymint wrote:
"The Tories are still doing the political equivalent of dancing around the handbag. No clear understanding of the scale of the mess we're in;"
=
I'm sure they understand very clearly the scale of the mess.
As you go on to say it's now about starting to piece together an alternative plan. One which won't scare the horses but is honest enough to give the electorate a sense of trust, but I think it will be more political card playing up until the elections.
Complain about this comment
Quangos offically entitled "Non-Departmental Public Bodies" , or NDPB for short is where you will find ALL the Jobs for "The Boys" such as Ex-Ministers and M.P.s' etc: endlessly and effortly soaking up an Expense Account as CEO's and Secretaries that the rest of us can only dream about.
Another misuse of these Bodies can only be measured by the utter waste of Public money they spend doing worthless Government exercises that appear pointless to anyone but the Quango itself in a vain effort to justify their worth.
Therefore, to sum -up "Quangos". One of the truly many waste of time inventions ever invented by Government too appease a one sided independent view of things that for the most parts ARE NOT in the Public Interest, therefore any Bonfire of the Quangos is long overdue, and the only objection shoulb be, "Why has it taken so long" to rid ourselves of this brigade of un-wanted and totally un-needed Placemen and Women.
Complain about this comment
21. jrperry
"prop up Brown and avoid an election here until after the Lisbon Consti-treaty is ratified"
Indeed can't have democracy interfere with the EU.
Complain about this comment
Anyone else having trouble signing in? getting a page not found message?
delete the web address back to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/07 and select. you will be signed in.
Or is it just me?
Complain about this comment
Curiously, Nick, you started your original blog post in exactly the way I always assumed commentators have got used to after years of Campell and Mandelson media manipulation, i.e. looking a the latest releases, rather than checking the facts.
It may be interesting to comment that "Cameron - or any other politician - will talk about this or that....".
But to get sniffy because YOU chose to go with a headline about speculation and a speech had another title when actually delivered doesn't impress me a lot.
Actually the big issue today is why, all of a sudden, a report that yook FOUR years to prepare is referred to the SFO by Mandelson. If there is something in that report that suggested fraud, the members of the investigation team had a legal obligation to advise the SFO as soon as that information emerged. So the question is WHY was no referral made earlier?
Was Mandelson's department totally outside the investigation, totally unaware of any likely content? Who appointed the investigative team and what special terms were arranged, or assumed, so no previous "fact" was referred to the SFO?
Now that is really smelly.
I don't give a paper tissue about what you call the examination of QANGOs. All political parties seem to agree that value for money is vital in every area of (tax or borrowings on "our" behalf) public spend.
Not bothered if you get the title of a speech right. It may matter to you, but it has no relevance to anything in trying to unravel the disastrous situation that Brown has helped create.
Bit bothered you seemed to wander off for 3 days with Brown last week and all we got was a single post. What on earth was the guy doing all that time? "Listening" to "the people". Bit late for that.
Complain about this comment
I wonder when the last time Nick Robinson posted something that was not favourable to the Govt. It'll take a lot of searching the archives thats for sure.
Complain about this comment
Is it really newsworthy that the Conservatives aren't going to simply destroy everything that is currently called a quango? That would make no more sense than revoking every single law on our books in order to get rid of the stupid laws Labour has introduced in the last few years.
As with anything like this it's about figuring what adds value and what doesn't. Bodies that soak up public funds and produce nothing of commensurate value need to be abolished. Bodies that provide services commensurate with their costs may still need to be streamlined but not abolished.
If anything we need this to go further and deeper, we need to root out vast levels of waste across the whole of the public sector. Then perhaps we can address the ongoing lie that spending cuts means fewer teachers and nurses. Who knows, given the huge salaries paid to some roles of questionable value within the public sector, we might get spending cuts while hiring more teachers and nurses.
Complain about this comment
23
Agree. The Tories understand very well the enormity of the problem - hence the request for detailed figures - denied by the party in power!
27
My first thoughts on the four year delay - what is the 'bad news' being buried.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Nick. Bit tetchy today.
You aren't just a commentator. I understand you're the Political EDITOR of BBC news. Thought those guys were supposed to check the facts.
Speculation just ain't fact. Bits of paper from a PR aide should be treated as something possibly useful in the privvy.
Of course you have to try and analyse loads of different input.
But if you think it's worth posting a follow up because you got the title of a speech wrong, you aren't going to get through the upcoming flood of garbage that will be unleashed between now and June next year.
For goodness sake, Darling's saying that all aspects of public spending are up for grabs. He didn't say that civil servants WEREN'T looking at cuts of up to 20percent - just that such leaks weren't attributed to the Treasury. Meanwhile Brown still wants to peddle his mirage of Labour sustained "investments"...
The country's falling to bits, Nick, and you get uptight because someone didn't give you the proper title of a speech... No wonder we're in a mess. A little bit more focus would help.
Complain about this comment
Typical Cameron-----all mouth and then no b***ocks
Complain about this comment
@31
Only a matter of time before your comment is removed on the grounds that it, er, broke House Rules (which it doesn't).
Increasingly, Nick is becoming the story.
So, come to think of it, this comment will probably be removed before you have a chance to read it.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Don't forget the other mega quango promised by Cameron, The Fiscal/Budget monitoring body they intend to set up, cant remember its name now, no doubt someone would be kind enough to remind us.
The old culling of Quangos promise is about as "honest" as the "we haven't seen the books" chestnut or "We'll only cut waste and bureaucracy" pledge. Its just typical "opposition speak", populist, vote catching, but ultimately NOTHING can be done without losing a "function" or "service that is needed or valued by someone. We've all heard it all before from all parties when in opposition.
But hey, no "thread of dishonesty" from Dave, no way, "Straight as a dye Dave" as you will be known.
By the way Dave, is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote and paying taxs to the UK exchequer?"
"...erm, cough..is that call for me cough....taxi, taxi"
Complain about this comment
Quite right to try to take as much as possible the running the country of the country out of polticians' hands. Their job is to provide funds, set general directions but not get bogged down in detail, whilst keeping a check on what's going on. They are not experts but even experts need to be controlled. If you don't have quangos, you end up with detailed decisions being made on the advice of civil servants, who often have little real experience in a particular area. That does not mean that I think all quangos are needed and that they all do their job properly.
At last David Cameron is showing a little maturity. However he needs to rein in the temptation of crowd pleasing headlines and ensure that the headlines match his more mature thought. The issue is that he knows that he will be PM in a year's time, so now is the time for him to begin tuning into what a PM should do and how they should act. He and his shadow cabinet should start talking as if they are ministers of HMG and not just opposition politicians and do more than making snide comments about Gordon Brown and his ministers. Today was a good start.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Deary me, Nick, so you are posting blog posts about events before the actual event! Time the BBC started reporting the news and abandoned their non-charter agenda, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Cameron is getting a bit tiresome now, isn't he? - looks like what went down here is, whilst sniffing the air in various golf clubs up and down the country, he detects a fair amount of animosity towards the Q word - so, toffee nose wrinkling at the aroma of that particular wind blowing though the portals, what does he do? ... he moves like grease lightening to catch and bottle it with a "policy" announcement! - I'm sorry but stuff like this is just NOT going to get my vote
Complain about this comment
Probably Cameron doesn't actually know what a quango is but as long as it sounds really dangerous he can look like George slaying the dragon. Just looked at the Economic Research council and between 1998 and 2006 the number of quangos seem to reduce from 692 to 524. By the way who does he think will run the NHS as the PCT and Health Boards (the biggest quangos by spend) I know what he will do, change the name! to cangos (Cameron autonymous non-governmental organisations. To be serious his Uturn on this issue has demonstrated his grip on convincing leadership - Not!
Complain about this comment
Not sure if I heard everything correctly on Radio 4's PM show.
Seems that a guy HEADS a team of 90 people with a fairly small budget (but which channels around 80MIL to other QANGOs) is paid GBP170,000.
For goodness sake, in private companies that would be a middle manager job. GBP170K - to identify skills that businesses may need but the country has no delivery structure to produce anyway...?
It's madness.
The Learning and Skills (sic) Council couldn't work out how much money they really had, so got colleges to go in for redevelopments they promised funding for, but just didn't have the funds to deliver...
SKILLS? LEARNING? Under this mob?
This government has lost all contact with reality.
Because it's a QANGO, no minister is responsible, so no one with the big one's in Brown's cabinet to take any blame. What a surprise.
The Times reported a ministerial comment:
"Siôn Simon, the Further Education Minister, said: I really do understand and I sympathise with the frustrations of colleges in this kind of position. There will be colleges who have invested money, who have borrowed money, even some who have started doing building works. It is right to say that the LSC has given in principal approval to 79 colleges which would total nearly £3 billion of government money and it is clear that that level of expenditure cannot be funded in the current spending round.
We are quite clear as ministers that that's not acceptable. We shouldn't be in that position. This programme has not been managed properly.
Just like the rest of the economy. It ain't what you want the outcome to be - it's the DELIVERY, stupid!
Complain about this comment
34 Eatonrifle
Why do you say the budget monitoring body (no, I can't remember the proposed name either) will be a "mega quango"? The job can be done by half a dozen accountants, a couple of accounts clerks and three or four support staff. Even if Cameron wants to double-up on my estimate, it will still have a headcount under 25. That's not "mega" in anybody's book.
While we are at it, on Lord Ashcroft, I think you will find the answers are "yes" and "yes". What's your point?
Complain about this comment
"You aren't just a commentator. I understand you're the Political EDITOR of BBC news. Thought those guys were supposed to check the facts.
Speculation just ain't fact. Bits of paper from a PR aide should be treated as something possibly useful in the privvy. "
e
You should try googling the phrase everyone was fooled. Even dennis Hannon MEP of the Telegraph and the Daily mail who changed the title in the article.
Complain about this comment
Nick
David Cameron, I think, made himself very clear on TV today. He said that he saw two issues
1) Waste/cost relating to quangos - there's is plenty of that and the financial saving is not small beer as the annual savings would dwarf e.g. scrapping the Trident replacement.
2) Direct politics/accountability.
I do not think you are giving David Cameron fair reporting here - no mention also of why our Labour government after 12 years of quango waste of between e.g £10-£20 billion + per year now suddenly thinks that money can be saved on quango bashing.
Your questions should surely be put to G. Brown's moneywasting government before trying to press David Cameron whilst in opposition - remember - Newish Labour are in power and not the Tories?
However, it's not rocket science to see that most of the quango's can go on the bonfire along with that disgraceful lazy and ineffective organisation known as the Local Government Ombudsman.
What I would like David Cameron to do is to do away with all of the qaungo's and LG Ombudsman and it's small army of incompetent waster ex-bureaucrats and replace it with a comprehensive modern tribunal system dealing with all public service decisions that would overlap with a reform of our legal system to enable all legitimate complaints about public and governmental operations, actions and decisions to be considered. This could also replace/reduce legal aid payments and give proper justice to the man in the street without getting robbed by lawyers and barristers in the legal system. This would be fairer and provide access to justice whether it is low pay, audit MP's expenses etc etc.
So Nick - What is 'curious' that both Labour and Tory parties being cautious with their statements in the run up to the next by-elections and general elections?
If someone would point out my proposal to David Cameron I would be most grateful - I don't think that 'Incapability Brown' will try and 'nick' this idea (about a a modern comprehensive tribunal service) as it involves noble and honourable notions about accountability, fairness, simplicity, direct politics etc which is all clearly alien to our Prime Minister.
The quango's are now/still in a bureaucratic mess and reform is overdue and there is now a massive opportunity to move the country forward with a radical reforming 'bonfire'. A modern reformed tribunal system could deal with everything that the quango's deal with and bring in members of the public in as Tribunal officers and members.
A comprehensive modern tribunal service could in fact provide the missing link between the ordinary person and Parliament as all MP's could be involved with the process and do a bit more for their enormous salaries and fat pensions. The service could be used to deal with many disputes more cost effectively with alternative resolution methods and could be used to slim down many government departments having their own repeat Tribunal services and which again - wastes money.
The first area it could be used would be to e.g. review decisions of local authority planning committees who seem to delight in completely ignoring the represenstations of local residents against e.g over-development in their family neighbourhoods - even when there is a full petition of local objectors.
Complain about this comment
Ahh, good. The cocktail hour.
Complain about this comment
I see a hint of criticism of David Cameron by Nick Robinson has flushed most of the Labour muppets out of their caves. davidou the teacher I see you are now using a spell checker. What you really need is a logic checker!
Complain about this comment
It doesn't really matter who said what and when, the important fact here is that Quangos are eradicated as the expensive waste of taxpayers money that they are, and I don't care who does it!
Maybe we should start with the biggest and most expensive Quango, the BBC Board?
Mind you, we've heard it all before haven't we? Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, and now Cameron!
Complain about this comment
There was an interesting bit on radio (possibly also in the press) some few months back, when Miliband Minor went to China to discuss climate change and environmental matters.
The Chinese were curious that Mili Minor was the minister responsible for a department that is largely dependent on scientific knowledge but has absolutely NO qualifications in such an area. His Chinese counterpart had several decades of immersion in the scientific/technical arena. (Just as their Defence Minister actually understands about military matters, their Economics ministers have been in that zone... etc Whatever... I bet the Chinese ministers aren't as good at talking to focus groups. And I'm confident they don't have good Oxbridge degrees in PPE. So they will really struggle whichever UK government ministers turn up, won't they?)
You could justifiably argue (as do many scientists who contributed to the original IPCC information gathering, but backed away when it all got overtaken by political, rather than scientific synthesis) that climate change is an act of nature we have to put up with anyway, so it really doesn't matter whether you understand it.
But in the UK we have had ministers "responsible" for Defence who cycle through the department at roughly two-yearly intervals, who have no credibility in the role, don't seem to bothered, and the latest one is ranked 21st out of 23 cabinet ministers! Behind the Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for Gooodness sake!
It's appalling. The Westminster ministers for Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales can't actually DO very much in the territories they supposedly oversee. The guy/gal heading Defence looks after the whole of the UK.
Good to see the PM's assessment of his political priorities.
Right now I'm fairlyopenminded about (just self-edited that, as it could have gone beyond the house rules)...
Complain about this comment
44
Over on www.politicalbetting.com IIRC the Cocktail hour you refer to was aptly named the "lagershed" by one on the contributors. How true.
Complain about this comment
41 JRPerry.
said
"While we are at it, on Lord Ashcroft, I think you will find the answers are "yes" and "yes". What's your point?"
==============
Well if you say so JR.
Look forward to Dave confirming this rather more clearly than Hague managed to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8080379.stm #
Worth another watch of Hague's squirmathon.
Oh and if you think that Cameron's Budget Monitoring Quango will have a staff of 25 you are in for an unpleasant surprise IMO. We'll see.
Complain about this comment
38 Sagamix
If you're tired of Cameron now, I can't imagine how you will feel in 2018 as he announces he's stepping down as PM for someone younger. I don't think they need your vote, either.
Actually, golf is very popular with the hoody contingent in my 'hood, so it would appear the real world has left you behind in the 1970s, scoffing curly sandwiches, drinking warm beer and eyeing up the skirt as you prop up the bar in your local Labour club!
Roll on the election, 'cos ya know - things can only get better, lol!
Complain about this comment
45 Sicilian
said
"I see a hint of criticism of David Cameron by Nick Robinson has flushed most of the Labour muppets out of their caves."
============
Which in turn has flushed you out Sicilian.
So my teacher friend, you must have heard many times the playground addage "sticks and stones...etc" However, you have arroused my curiosity.
Labour (supporter) = Muppet
Tory (supporter) = ??
Let us know..
Complain about this comment
46 Rock
said
"Mind you, we've heard it all before haven't we? Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, and now Cameron!"
====================
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said at #34 its "opposition speak" but it doesn't stop the gullible falling for the tired old clap trap.
Complain about this comment
49 Eatonrifle
Yes, I saw the Hague interview, live and uncut, rather than the edited version you are linking to. Hague had a clear answer to a far-from-well-put question by Paxman. Paxman, desperate to revive his sharp-toothed reputation of two decades ago, thought he could see a reprise of his ancient Howard moment, and had a go at making a last headline, but failed. In the end, Hague was laughing at him, and rightly so. The Beeb, whose investment in Paxman exceeds seven figures in pounds of your money and mine, have done their best to polish the results up (because if Paxman looks stupid then so does the entire BBC management). But let's face it, Hague's answer is true, fair and honest and he had no reason to change it no matter how many times the question was put, and Paxo is a sad caricature of his former self.
Complain about this comment
#42, dhwilkinson wrote:
"You aren't just a commentator. I understand you're the Political EDITOR of BBC news. Thought those guys were supposed to check the facts.
Speculation just ain't fact. Bits of paper from a PR aide should be treated as something possibly useful in the privvy. "
=======
You should try googling the phrase everyone was fooled. Even dennis Hannon MEP of the Telegraph and the Daily mail who changed the title in the article."
DH,
Thanks. You reinforce my point. Too many journalists and Westminster villagers have been conditioned over 12 (possibly 15) years to take pre-released, pre-fact comment as "information", and PR splurge etc as the basis for a hook to try and set the news agenda for the day.
Whichever government will be in power in late 2010 will have a massive task to try and bring the UK's wildly excessive spending under control.
So, when Darling's talking about nothing being exempt from spending cuts, Mandelson is kicking a GBP16MIL report into the long grass, why is a speech about reducing the number of QANGOs a big issue?
It should be just another, OK that has to happen moment.
My real point was that a BBC Political Editor felt that he should come back and re-post, just because the title of a speech was not as anticipated. NO comment on Mandelson's SFO referral. NO reference to Darling quite obviously trying to be realistic, while Brown still talks about "increased investment". Brown never explains that "investing" money he never had, could only come from tax or borrowing - but he is legally entitled to force a couple of generations of fellow citizens to pay for - is actually NOT a good thing.
It's madness.
Like the 10p tax band nonsense. "Nobody will lose out." Well, maybe if they can work their way through the thousands of extra pages of regulation he introduced and zimmer their way to a sympathetic tax officer - and turn the gas down just a touch for a couple of years...
It's down the pan, DH.
Goodness sake, if the "Learning and Skills" Council can't add up, how do expect the next generation to get by???
Complain about this comment
muppet @ 50
so it would appear the real world has left you behind in the 1970s, scoffing curly sandwiches, drinking warm beer and eyeing up the skirt as you prop up the bar in your local Labour club!
knew I was being watched! - you're wrong about the Clowns not needing my vote though - for one thing, I get 10 votes as an officially accredited Clear Thinking Progressive, and for a second thing I live in a razor edge 3 way marginal - so it's probable that, as a floating voter ... or voters rather ... whoever I plump for will form the next government - quite a privilege, I guess, but also something of a burden
Complain about this comment
Trying again.
There was an interesting bit on radio (possibly also in the press) some few months back, when Miliband Minor went to China to discuss environmental matters.
The Chinese were curious that Mili Minor was the minister responsible for a department that is largely dependent on scientific knowledge but has absolutely NO qualifications in such an area. His Chinese counterpart had several decades of immersion in the scientific/technical arena. (Just as their Defence Minister actually understands about military matters, their Economics ministers have been in that zone... etc Whatever... I bet the Chinese ministers aren't as good at talking to focus groups. And I'm confident they don't have good Oxbridge degrees in PPE. So they will really struggle whichever UK government ministers turn up, won't they?)
In the UK we have had ministers "responsible" for Defence who cycle through the department at roughly two-yearly intervals, who have no credibility in the role, don't seem too bothered, and the latest one is ranked 21st out of 23 cabinet ministers! Behind the Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for Gooodness sake!
It's appalling. The Westminster ministers for Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales can't actually DO very much in the territories they supposedly oversee. The guy/gal heading Defence looks after the whole of the UK.
Good to see the PM's assessment of his political priorities.
Complain about this comment
53 JRPerry
My God JR that's breathtaking it really is.
Never have I seen such a robust defence of the indefencible.
You think Hague was "true, fair and honest" and simply laughing at Paxman!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd be amazed if even on here, a hotbed of Tory support you can get anyone to (seriously) back up your assessment of Hagues response to the Ashcroft intrview.
But hey who knows, Sicilian perhaps, Robin probably would.
Oh no of course Susan Croft, a cert!
Complain about this comment
54 fairly
If you are suggesting that Robinson's mini postathon today was calculated to distract rather than inform, then see my post 21 above for an appropriately cautionary message.
Complain about this comment
Fairly
"My real point was that a BBC Political Editor felt that he should come back and re-post, just because the title of a speech was not as anticipated."
You mean not as it was printed on the invitation? This is a politics blog. The Conservative party is a political party who want to be the government. They also should be challenged. This isn't the bring down the government blog.
The quango's issue is always brought up by the opposition and nothing is done about it. Its pure electioneering and should be challenged. I can't stand political b.. nonsense.
The type issues you mention also feature in Peston picks and Stephanomics blogs. How much more do you need?
Complain about this comment
57 Eatonrifle
Clearly, you did NOT see the original Paxman-Hague interview.
Complain about this comment
Quangos would run far more efficiently and effectively if:
1. Members of quango boards were precluded from sitting on other quango boards.
2. Members of quango boards were precluded from "serving" if in the last 12 months they have "served" on another quango board.
3. At least half of the members of every quango board had a successful track record in the private sector real world.
4. Quango boards were incentivised to reduce the total cost of their quango, and were paid a bonus linked to cost reductions.
And that applies equally to the BBC Board of Governors.
I'll not comment on Nick's impartiality or otherwise in this latest blog post, since every single time I have suggested any lack of impartiality my comments have been modded-off as being "off topic" even though I have been commenting on what Nick wrote.
And as for Cameron...he needs to explain how he will avoid the trap of being persuaded to expand the quangos once in government. Or maybe he is best just keeping quiet till after the election so he does not get hammered by the endangered quangocrats, then hammer them back into the real world once he is in office? I'm not at all sure that making quangos more accountable is the answer; we managed for centuries without most quangos, so why do we need most of them now?
Complain about this comment
60. At 9:06pm on 06 Jul 2009, jrperry wrote:
"57 Eatonrifle
Clearly, you did NOT see the original Paxman-Hague interview."
Well I did and I agree with "Eatonrifle", Huge was flannelling so much I thought he was about to wash his own or Paxman's face!
Huge was looking distinctly uncomfortable at being questioned about Ashcroft, you are so obviously besotted with Huge (or the Tories as a whole) you mistook a nervous laugh as a genuine sign of humour...
Complain about this comment
I see a lot of posts about the Hague interview etc but very little accuracy about what David Cameron has been saying today about quangos.
Surely all that D Cameron is saying about quangos is that some of them will be eliminated as a waste of space and the few remaining useful ones will be reviewed so that they function better?
Totally misleading blog and unfair to David Cameron!
Complain about this comment
"Cameron promises ..." woah, stop right there.
This is a politician who uttered those words ... correct?
Well excuse me whilst I just blank the rest of it.
Politicans have an Everest of trust to climb, especially senior ones who'd rather that awkward questions about their expenses would just go away.
After the past couple of months of stone lifting on MP's expenses, I'd rather they just crawled back under said stone and stayed there until the election.
But no such luck, these people have such neck and some are still spouting off in the media.
Shameless.
Nevertheless, the fact that about half of the Labour MP's are not even standing for re-election is a strong indicator taht soem have already taken the hint.
Probably a similar percentage of Tories and Lib-Dems should also be considering their positions or possibly risk being punished at the polls by their respective electorates.
PS. Talking of stone lifting, the BBC itself is revealed to have some very senior people feasting at the license fee payers expense. Where will all end?
Complain about this comment
60 JR Perrty
JR, I most certainly DID see the original interview and the link to the current BBC version is exactly how I recall the Ashcroft Qand As.
What are you saying? That ist been cleverly edited to make Hague look evasive and dishonest?
Well if you are its certainly worked because guess what, he looks evasive and dishonest!
Complain about this comment
susan ... eaton (57) is calling you a "cert" ... want me to talk to him?
Complain about this comment
63 Nautonier
You didn't get a sense of DejaVu at all???
Every opposition leader for the last 40 years has said this!!!
Then they get into power and get a reality check about the consequences of getting rid of the "function" or "service" they deliver or regulate.
It populist "opposition speak" I'm surprised so many get taken in by it particularly as we've seen it all before.
Complain about this comment
Surely a quango can be of good use as long as its make up is totally independant, and its brief is clear. The problem is when a quango is made up of cronies and is an easy buck for government supporters.
Complain about this comment
66 Saga
Not even with Your's Saga!
Complain about this comment
How is it that I have had posts removed that are far closer to the subject than the Hague-Paxman interview is to quangos?
Enjoyed Hagues squirming, but can't see it's relevance here!
Complain about this comment
26 dhwilkinson
Bit late but Ive only just got round to scanning todays posts, yes I twice got an error 404 site not found notice and eventually went in through yesterdays history.
Very strange!
Complain about this comment
67. At 9:36pm on 06 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
63 Nautonier
You didn't get a sense of DejaVu at all???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not at all - I think that David Cameron understands the gravity of political pledges and will try and deliver - as unlike the current Labour Party.
I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Blair in 1997 but I will never make that kind of mistake again!
And...
an effective tribunal service could be used to hold politicians to account on manifesto pledges. Quango's will not do that and no other mechanism will hold a liar UK MP/party/government to account, it seems.
I think we need to be careful questioning D. Camerons' integrity when the current labour government have reneged on virtually everything that they have promised - the UK 'constitution' provides a way of doing things by way of 'us' having to trust our politicians to deliver once in power - that is the reality.
Complain about this comment
Eaton
Of course it is opposition speak to threaten to sort out quangos, just as it's Government speak to ply the tactics of fear for what change will bring. Unfortunately for GB the tactics of fear are about 10% cuts which everyone knows will come whoever wins.
Complain about this comment
26 and 71
Since the website was changed a couple of weeks ago I can't get onto most of the sports pages or many of the news pages. It thinks I'm logging on from outside the UK. Its rubbish and now spend more time on Sky news and sport.
Complain about this comment
65 Eatonrifle, 62 Boilerplated
I have a recording of the Hague - Paxman interview, and I have just re-watched it to check the fairness of my earlier comment. I am quite happy that indeed I was being fair. Indeed, on re-watching, the whole thing seems even more tragi-comical, in the context of Paxman, than I recalled.
You are seeking to take advantage of an edited clip, resulting from a prime BBC editorial policy, (that is, to make their investment in Paxman look sound by boosting him) which happened to coincide with your own political advantage (to make Ashcroft seem like a crook and make Hague look like a mug who was backing him up). Your assertions about having seen the original are at best unlikely, at worst based on false memories determined by your wish to find round every corner evidence, however tenuous, to support your particular political views.
What can I say to two people who would happily argue that black was white, if it was necessary to bolster the flagging Labour cause? Wake up and smell the coffee!
Complain about this comment
Nick it looks like Guido has got it nailed:
Here are the 17 quangos the Tories have proposed.
Source of list: Labour Party press office.
Complain about this comment
#59, dhwilkinson wrote:
Fairly
"My real point was that a BBC Political Editor felt that he should come back and re-post, just because the title of a speech was not as anticipated."
You mean not as it was printed on the invitation? This is a politics blog. The Conservative party is a political party who want to be the government. They also should be challenged. This isn't the bring down the government blog.
The quango's issue is always brought up by the opposition and nothing is done about it. Its pure electioneering and should be challenged. I can't stand political b.. nonsense.
The type issues you mention also feature in Peston picks and Stephanomics blogs. How much more do you need?
=====
DH,
There are plenty of people on blogs like this who are very party political. I'm not attached to any party. Deliberately so. All I'm interested in is the outcome - the delivery - NOT the carefully worded political justifications for attempting change. NOR the badly written legislation that seems to have emerged over the years.
(By the way, I haven't checked on Peston or Stephanomics... )
I don't care whether it was a Labour, Tory, Lib/Dem or other party's "invitation". It just seems wrong that, while significant political news requires examination, we have a BBC editor blogging and sounding a bit annoyed because the title of a speech from a PR puff was inaccurate. So what? Surely nobody believes PR output? Let alone a BBC man?
Point is, should there be a real examination of the costs associated with delivering services to Joe or Jane Blogs? Joe or Jane, by the way, may not be tax-payers. Maybe too young, too old and poor, etc. But they still either shop or have things bought for them that come with a tax-take. Tax attaches to everybody. Government spend is drifting away from what is collected via tax into what can be raised by borrowings. That worries me. Hope it worries you, too, as the numbers we're looking at won't be managed down for 40 years. So that will include next generations. Maybe you're single. That's around the time it took the UK to pay back the USA for loans allowing us to get through WWII.
So do QANGOs deliver good value? I'm not smitten by the OUTCOME.
If QANGOs are headed by the great and GOOD - why do those good people require such high salaries? If they want to "put something back", why does it cost us so much?
Money that's cycled through governments incurs costs. Handle it once via tax and borrowing (direct expense)- that costs - handle it twice (including QANGOs) and the cost of handling goes up. Get a QANGO to pass money to another QANGO and, well, costs rise again. We pay for all that, but democratic responsiblity just disappears.
What's the OUTCOME?
Learning and Skills Council is apparently going to change. (Not sure if that's just a new set of headed note-paper we'll pay for...) BUT they still couldn't manage the sums. Skills? What had they Learnt? That doesn't look too good to me. And not very impressive to the foreign people/governments we hope will buy UK bonds to help this mob get access to cash they don't have and still talk about "investing", when we all know it's a case of get out the life jackets...
Any minister responsible, prepared to resign, because the LSC messed up? Nah. Not me, guv, it was the folk in the QANGO...
Regional government? Who, exactly voted for that? Only time it was put to a direct vote of the people it could affect, it was rejected out of hand. So what couldn't be done by a few civil servants co-ordinating objectives but instead costs us a fortune via unelected, unaccountable people?
I rather appreciate "he/she said or did" journalism, accompanied by analysis. I really don't like "he or she WILL say or do" stuff (as promulgated by Campbell Mandelson and Co). The first is news, the second is speculation on the circumstances that may occur - or may be stopped by some change in the world.
I don't mind political commentators speculating. I don't like editors who should be a little more circumspect, confusing "will" with "did". How many journalists failed to understand that after JFK "will do something", but was assassinated; the G8 "would" come up with, when 7/7 rocked London, so a little refocus was needed?
"We WILL" just doesn't put bread on the table, despite the brave new words. We DID is something to talk about. That's NEWS, actually.
Remember "Things will only get better"? Care to use that as a theme tune for the New Labour project now? Well, maybe this time, at least, things could hardly be worse...
Still non-aligned, but it's getting harder!
Complain about this comment
75 JR
Cut the bluster JR, are yoy saying the website clip has been edited?
If so what/where is the edit?
Complain about this comment
76 Roll on
You do realise they would be new quangos created by Cameron NOT abolished?
including the "Office of Budget Responsibility"
I was trying to remember that earlier at #34. Thanks for that
Complain about this comment
Some quangos are good, some are bad.
We want rid of the bad, keep the good and bring in quangos that are necessary.
What's the story?
You were doing so well when you asked the PM about the "CUTS" story... "This is a debate he does not want to have, an interview he did not enjoy, but a subject that will not go away."
And then it went away......
Complain about this comment
#75. At 10:01pm on 06 Jul 2009, jrperry wrote:
You are seeking to take advantage of an edited clip,"
No I'm not, I haven't actually ever watched, the cited (edited?), clip in question, my recollection is of the original (and full) broadcast.
Complain about this comment
Just watched a TV documentary about the low life scum Kohli who murdered Hannah Foster in Hampshire. Rather puts into perspective all this silly political bickering. It won't change anything because the result of The next General Election is now set in stone. If cuts have to be made it seems sensible to begin with useless quangos.
Complain about this comment
Sad thing is that the "bonfire" was probably removed because someone realised that under Health and Safety regulations, it wouldn't be permitted.
Now that's a shame.
Somebody hadn't checked out the carbon-swap rules.
I'm always surprised that anybody paid for from the public purse is paid more than the Prime Minister. Just how many other people get to run a country?
OK, a PM is just the leader of whichever party wins more seats. Disposable really, every 5 years max.
EVERY CEO should be disposable every 5 years if a decent form of corporate management could have been introduced over the last 12 years... But I never expected Gordon to make the change. After all, he needed the tax-take, to spray over the long grass, so it would grow high enough to hide the awkward issues chucked its way over the years...
Complain about this comment
rifle @ 57 wrote;
I'd be amazed if even on here, a hotbed of Tory support you can get anyone to (seriously) back up your assessment of Hagues response to the Ashcroft intrview.
But hey who knows, Sicilian perhaps, Robin probably would.
I'd be grateful if you didn't presume to speak for me. We're discussing quangos not Lord Ashworth so kindly keep me out of your irrelevant little spat with another blogger.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
as David Mitchell so eruditely puts it:
It just goes to show you can't be too careful!
Complain about this comment
82 sicilian
I can't understand what it is that you and Cameron have got against Carrots, he may be a Tory but he seems like a nice bloke, does this mean that you Tories are turning in on yourselves?.
Complain about this comment
The Conservatives plan is to transfer policy making functions from quangos like Ofcom to the civil service. I thought they were in favour of smaller government?
Interesting they choose to single out the media regulator.
They obviously want government control of the media. 1984?
Complain about this comment
84 Sicilian wrote
"We're discussing quangos not Lord Ashworth so kindly keep me out of your irrelevant little spat"
Well except at #45 it seems
"I see a hint of criticism of David Cameron by Nick Robinson has flushed most of the Labour muppets out of their caves. davidou the teacher I see you are now using a spell checker. What you really need is a logic checker!"
No mention of Qangos at all just a "spat" like opportunity to "name call"
Double standards anyome?
Complain about this comment
78 ER
In answer to your question, yes. The original cuts backward and forward between face shots of Hague and Paxo, who seems to keep up a set of gruesome, clown-like facial expressions throughout. There is also a studio area shot that has been edited out.
Complain about this comment
89 JRP
But the questions and Hagues answers remain the same?
I suggest you close your eyes and just listen rather than looking for excuses in the camera shot then if you still feel Hague was Fair, true and honest well, like I said, try to find someone (not Sicilian though) to back you up?
Complain about this comment
dhw @ 87
They obviously want government control of the media. 1984?
a disturbing thought - Orwell's 1984 is a truly terrifying vision of what life could be like under the "wrong sort" of Conservative administration - satire, of course, but no less effective for that - a warning we should all heed, regardless of our political views or current voting intentions
Complain about this comment
77 fairly..
Yeh thanks fairly... I do understand tax, I do understand cost cutting and I can also recognise political BS when I hear it from politicians.
Quangos and the media are popular scapegoats for the right wing and both have beeb attacked at once by Cameron and the tories today. IMO they've been trying to give 2 different impressions to 2 audiences. They are both having a bonfire of the quangos to some and a thoughtful cost cutting excercise to others. Nothing will happen. Its electioneering. Someone has to make decisions and there is often a need for impartial decision making seperated from politics.
I'm not in a position to judge which quangos are important and which are a waste of money but at least I can admit that. Unlike some self proclaimed experts. Not you! I know all about you.
Complain about this comment
More a case of seeing smoke and calling fire when it was actually fog in which we are all lost.
The issue is we have:-
A guango with specific real world experience, no diplomacy, no democracy
Or
The civil service with no worldly experience, no democracy, plenty of diplomacy
Or
The government little worldly experience little diplomacy lots of democracy that means they are out before they are accountable.
So who do you want planning your future and who will make the best job of it
Problem is we are again looking at the wrong end of the problem, what has gone wrong, we should be asking
Are we happy with the road we are on and where it is going?
Do we know where it is going?
Where would we like to be going what would we like when we get there?
If we decide first the type of socio-economic environment and community we want and the type of sustainable society that will meet the needs of the majority we can then decide on the best vehicle to get us there.
The real problem is we need some real big CHANGE in the world starting in our society to meet the needs of people in the near future. Until we can picture and decide on what is achievable and essentially sustainable we are lost, no point building for a decade we have to design for life, or we will remain the victims of our leaders and not the supporters of them.
Complain about this comment
Two bloggers trying to wind me up on the subject of William Hague. Have you not noticed one of you that I now don't respond to at all to any of your warped views on Gordon Brown and all things Labour while the other is a new addition to my ignore list! Goad as much as you like I won't be engaging in silly tit for tat exchanges and I certainly won't be responding to any of your questions.
Complain about this comment
If Cameron means he will only have 17 Quangos then I would perhaps agree with him.
We do not need most Quangos and we certainly cannot afford them, most should be abolished especially the BPC of potato heads. Quangos are just a useful tool for Government to avoid responsibility. A lot of their powers should be handed back to ministers as their decisions and services are carried out by people who cannot be voted out by the public. Their leaders are often earning fantastic salaries very often for little work and they are jobs for the boys organisations.
Inspite of the rise of Quangos under this Government we still have massive amounts of civil servants. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979 there were 735,000 civil servants when they left office in 1997 there were 450,000 now we are back to the levels of 1979.
On the face of it, considering our massive debt, cutting Quangos does not seem like it will save a lot of money. However I think if you dig deeper you will find that cutting these organisations will prove very profitable indeed.
I just wish someone would get on with cutting something to stop our debt mounting up.
Eatonrifle 57
Nobody speaks for me, except me and that includes you, its just a pity you have not learnt to do the same as you always allow the Labour Party to speak for you.
Complain about this comment
A fair article on Public Service pay by Polly Toynbee in case Darling decides that he wants to curtail independently reckoned pay awards in order to claw back some the money lost to The Treasury as a result of partial mismanagement of The Economy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/06/public-sector-private-pay
Complain about this comment
#77 fairlyopenmind
You're still the most sensible and level-headed out of all the bloggers on here, great post!
Like many others on here, I still wonder when we might see such balance, eloquence, common sense and neutrality from Mr Robinson!
Complain about this comment
I find it very curious that you seem to be blaming the Tories for your reporting errors?!
I listened to the speech and Tory HQ are quite right.
Maybe you need to re-evaluate your sources or more importantly your reporting impartiality!
Complain about this comment
96. At 07:06am on 07 Jul 2009, sicilian29 wrote:
A fair article on Public Service pay by Polly Toynbee in case Darling decides that he wants to curtail independently reckoned pay awards in order to claw back some the money lost to The Treasury as a result of partial mismanagement of The Economy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/06/public-sector-private-pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link Sicilian... I don't usualy agree with Polly but she has seen the light recently. A superb article that as the word in the title suggests blows the myths created with regards the public sector
Complain about this comment
95 Susan
Cameron is saying 17 "New" quangos MOT 17 in total!!
That would be an extra 17??
Keep up Susan.
Complain about this comment
100
Read an interview with Mr Weller a while back and he states he would never ever vote Labour again, just thought i would mention it.
Complain about this comment
100. At 07:46am on 07 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
95 Susan
Cameron is saying 17 "New" quangos MOT 17 in total!!
That would be an extra 17??
Keep up Susan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on how many he gets rid off eaton
Complain about this comment
sicilian @ 94
well I'm glad I'm not in your little black book! - seriously though, if Cameron wants to convince floating voters like me to back him next year, he's got to do more than this catch the wind sloganeering
Complain about this comment
Ah, I'm bored with quangos now. The only thing that surprises me is that Gordon Brown hasn't suggested setting up a quango to look at the viability of quangos and report back, after the election of course.
Do you think, as Political Editor of the BBC, Mr Robinson, that you could start asking all the parties the questions that really matter? e.g. what they are going to do/would do now and over the next 5 years to get the country back in the black. This focus on tinkering round the edges is a nonsense.
I have 2 daughters, twins, both of whom hope to go to University in 2 years time. At this rate, they'll be lucky if I can afford to help them achieve that ambition instead of sending them out to find work - if any exists. We, as a family, have cut back on absolutely everything. We are not 'hard up' but are definitely 'hard working'. Still, TV 2 has gone, car 2 has gone, no holiday this year, decorating plans on hold, etc, etc. There are no sacred cows in our budget, other than trying to do the best for the girls, so why should there be for the government? If you can't afford something, just don't spend money on it - it's simple really. But continuing to spend at historic rates while also finding other stuff to spend money on, at the same time as income drops through the floor, is plain stupid.
Help for hard working families? Utter tosh.
Rant over. Headache worse.
Complain about this comment
96 Sicilian
Credit where credit is due, that is an excellent article Sicilian. Thankyou.
I doubt however if it will find much support on here. Keep up the good work though.
(can we be friends now?)
Complain about this comment
Sicilian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/05/will-hutton-recession-britain-debt
Another good article worth a l;ook.
Complain about this comment
106
I do like the first response to that article though.
Just how long should Britain run them for then? The problem with claims like this:
Tough talk about deficit reduction must wait until calmer times.
Is that we have had calmer times. Brown presided over a decade of benign economic figures - good growth, steady employment growth, low interest rates and lower inflation. And what did he do? He ran up huge debts.
Britain cannot run deficits forever. I agree. The problem is that Britain does not have low levels of debt, it has huge levels of debt. It has even bigger levels if you count all the debt the Government has hidden like PFIs and pensions. Britain is facing a Latin-American-style meltdown - and look at the history of that continent and tell us debt does not matter, that people will always buy Government bonds! We simply have no real choice in the matter.
As always the terrible thing here is that Brown knew. He knew what good economic management was. He said he was doing it. He said that they were going to leave Britain in a better position to weather any downturn. He talked a good talk on counter-cyclical spending. But he didn't do it. He spent like a drucken sailor. Now we will have to pay the price in a downturn that will be harsher and longer than it needs to be.
And the Government's only response is to continue to lie about debt.
Fantastic.
Complain about this comment
#92, dhwilkinson wrote:
77 fairly..
Yeh thanks fairly... I do understand tax, I do understand cost cutting and I can also recognise political BS when I hear it from politicians.
----------------
DH,
Sorry if it came across "all pompous". Wasn't the intent and I certainly don't believe that I know any better than anyone else.
I struggle to understand why organisations (Private at least as much as Public) make things so complex and labyrinthine. There seems to be a reluctance to go for the simple.
That's why (IMHO) Brown got into so much trouble over the 10p tax band... It should have been easy to say that a 10p band would ONLY apply to people with income less than GBP N,000. Instead we have Special Payments, complicated forms to complete to claim back money, etc, etc, and he's still not out of the woods!
There have been some political commentators suggesting that government should take a look at approaches taken by PLCs to reduce costs. BT was taken as an example in one paper.
(The same dominant UK telecomms company that didn't get its head around "mobile", couldn't get its act together and eventually spun-off O2, which is now much bigger than its parent... You should have seen the waste inside the BT business. Management-inspired/Board-tolerated.
BA made GBP900MIL profit the year before a GBP400MIL loss. When should it have been addressing cost-base? While it was doing well, not when a single major disruption because of "staff cost re-alignment" could take it out of business... To be fair, over the years they've shaken out hundreds of senior / middle management.
But there are now roughly a third of all Labour MPs in "ministerial/ executive" roles. Why? If so many aspects of government are performed via QANGOs, then direct ministerial responsibility has diminished... so why so many "executives"?)
You can't just cost-cut your way to success in business. If you don't improve revenues, it all eventually goes down the pan. If a country can't pay its way, just cutting costs won't save it. But keeping your knee on the throat of tax payers doesn't help them feel bouncy. And you can't borrow your way out of debt unless (maybe) you buy some magic product, see it soar in value, and have the good sense to sell off before the market collapses again.. Maybe "our" banks will eventually make a return for the nation. Meantime, we'll pay tens of BILLIONs to service national debt. And keep hoping...
There I go again. Too many comments. That's why I sometimes disappear from the site. All this stuff makes my head hurt.
=====
DH: "I'm not in a position to judge which quangos are important and which are a waste of money but at least I can admit that. Unlike some self proclaimed experts."
I'm no expert and happily admit it. I'd quite like a bonfire of regulations that don't have some positive impact on the way businesses work.
=========
DH: "Not you! I know all about you."
OK. You know I type too much. And scrabble around to try and make my own sense out of stuff. Please don't tell me "I know where you live"!!!!!
Complain about this comment
97, djlazarus wrote:
#77 fairlyopenmind
You're still the most sensible and level-headed out of all the bloggers on here, great post!"
DJ - Thanks. Made me blush. You should hear what my wife says about me!
"Like many others on here, I still wonder when we might see such balance, eloquence, common sense and neutrality from Mr Robinson!"
DJ - Not so eloquent, but it does help a little if you are somewhat neutral. My common theme (now that's pompous) is that I don't really care what politicians say. They have to be slippery, to some extent. It's all about the DELIVERY of outcome.
"Prudence" more or less survived one electoral term, then ran away with a sailor... "Education" should last for ever, but seems to have popped round the back of the bike shed for a quick fag...
Best thing about bonfires (that's to show the mods I do follow the topic!) is the baked potatoes... Yummy.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
This is off topic, but far more relevant to a parliamentary political blog. I lifted this from Guido fawkes site: (with appropriate edits)
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution report on the Parliamentary Standards Bill was out yesterday, and they didnt pull their punches:
We are particularly concerned by the hasty manner in which policy-making has taken place, with negligible public consultation, and the subsequent fast-tracking through Parliament of a bill which will have major constitutional implications the bill is the product of a desire to respond to a demand to see something done, as the Government put it, rather than the outcome of a law-making process suitable for a bill with serious constitutional repercussions The bill will accordingly have to be substantially recast. To do so under an accelerated passage is in our view wholly unacceptable given the questions of constitutional principle and detail that it raises We are wholly unpersuaded by the Governments case for this bill to be fast-tracked. There is an undoubted need to restore public confidence in the parliamentary system. It is not, however, clear to us that a cobbled together bill rushed through Parliament will help rebuild public trust; on the contrary, if Parliament cannot be seen to be scrutinising proposals with the thoroughness they deserve, public confidence in parliamentarians is likely to be further undermined. Governments should find the strength to resist falling into a temptation simply to see something done, which is no substitute for properly prepared policy and legislation.
As the Lords say, it is a hastily cobbled together rush to do something the wrong thing. The report diplomatically describes the Prime Ministers expenses announcement on YouTube as constitutionally unorthodox. The Kelly inquiry into MPs expenses from the Committee on Standards in Public Life wont report back until the autumn. It is carrying out wide public consultations. This fast-tracked Bill is like something out of Alice in Wonderland, just as the Queen wanted sentence first verdict afterwards, Gordon wants legislation first, consideration afterwards.
Is this a case where MSM no longer leads debates, and is another sign of the dead tree press nearing the end of its days?
Complain about this comment
91. sagamix wrote
dhw @ 87
They obviously want government control of the media. 1984?
a disturbing thought - Orwell's 1984 is a truly terrifying vision of what life could be like under the "wrong sort" of Conservative administration - satire, of course, but no less effective for that - a warning we should all heed, regardless of our political views or current voting intentions
=
Satire is you lot discussing an incoming Tory government and 1984 style control of the press. Or irony, to be more accurate.
We're almost there with Labour's history of press control, Campbell, Watson, McBride... the harassment of the BBC and the following resignations... if any government in our time has got close to 1984 it is the present one. The only reason they are now losing that control is that media barons do not support lost causes. Although Ed is still doing his best to intimidate journalists.
Not saying the Tories will be any different, but Labour will be hard to beat.
103. saga
"if Cameron wants to convince floating voters like me to back him next year, he's got to do more than this catch the wind sloganeering"
=
Pull the other one.
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 102
You know sometimes I do worry about you, what I am saying here, is if Cameron is suggesting we have only 17 Quangos and the rest would be cut then I may agree with him.
Rather than me keep up you need to read posts properly.
Complain about this comment
108 fairlyopenmind
The simplistic argument about quangos(QU is 1 letter I think?)that is being implied but won't be carried out. Is what annoys me. What will happen is not a bonfire which is not environmentally friendly but recycling of the quangos.
"That's why (IMHO) Brown got into so much trouble over the 10p tax band... It should have been easy to say that a 10p band would ONLY apply to people with income less than £N,000. Instead we have Special Payments, complicated forms to complete to claim back money, etc, etc, and he's still not out of the woods!"
Kind of agree with you. Must be some explanation for it though. Like you'd have to include wealthy families where a partner has a part time job etc. Don't know!
"BA made £900MIL profit the year before a £400MIL loss. When should it have been addressing cost-base? "
I think I've read or heard that airlines always run on the brink of bankruptcy. The recession can't be doing them any good.
"I'd quite like a bonfire of regulations that don't have some positive impact on the way businesses work."
The old cutting red tape chestnut. Another tory favourite. You are in danger of being tempted to the dark side!
I don't know where you live!!!!!! I was only fishing. Can't explain what for.
Complain about this comment
61. Adrian_Goodrich wrote:
"And as for Cameron...he needs to explain how he will avoid the trap of being persuaded to expand the quangos once in government. Or maybe he is best just keeping quiet till after the election so he does not get hammered by the endangered quangocrats, then hammer them back into the real world once he is in office?"
=
Exactly. Why make a big announcement? List it on your website, bring it into conversation.. all he's doing is leaving himself open to the possibility of non-delivery down the line. Just as those before him.
Complain about this comment
What shocks me is that the goverments own estimate of the cost of the guangos this year is BETWEEN 34billion and 60billion.
As they are non profit making and offering the goverment a service why is there shch a massive gap between the upper and lower limits!
Council Tax raises 24Billion so if the goverment forced the quangos to stick to the 34 Billion figure we could pay off 26Billion of debt OR abolish council tax giving every household around £100 a month to spend!
Complain about this comment
How many ex-MP's, members of the house of lords, and friends and relations of Ministers / MP's work for quangos?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Journalism in this country has gone seriously downhill over the last 12 years.
I'm convinced more than ever that the news we see on TV is just regurgitated PR stories, put out by politicians and companies.
The only real news we get is if a disaster of some form has occurred - and even then the media hype the story out of all proportion i.e. Swine Flu.
For me BBC news used to be the gold standard. No more. In order to get a sense of political news these days, you have to read the key independent blogs.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that with 70 quangos and the millions they cost, this Labour Government manages to get so much, so wrong, so often?
Complain about this comment
Not sure if anyone has posted this link, looks like a fair and balanced report.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/issues/quangos.php
The biggest problem with quangos appears to be one of control. If the departments can't say for sure how many there are and appointments can be made without proper scrutiny, then it is no wonder we are cynical about quangos and their usefulness. Citing numbers is less important than ensuring control and accountability.
Complain about this comment
#6 RobinJD
You say that Cameron has tapped into the public's desire not to be preached to although he seems pretty fanatical about marriage - in fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard him preaching on that and other issues.
It's always interesting to read your posts because whilst I agree that we've got a pretty rotten government now, I don't agree that David Cameron's Conservatives are the answer.
What exactly does he stand for - it seems he's anything everything to anyone? This behaviour is proven over and over again.... he's made friends with fascists in Europe (apparently expecting to trigger some kind of Damascene conversion), he's going to kill QUANGOs but create more in their place, he's green amongst environmentalists yet not amongst business, he condemns the government but for what (continue to privatise by stealth using PFI/PPP)?. What about Michael Ashcroft? What about electoral reform so that we can start resembling a democracy?
He's just another Tony Blair.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix comment 91, trying to insinuate that:
1. You are not politically aligned
2. You are worried that a tory government might be like 1984 in wanting the civil service to take over Ofcom.
I just reconcile these two statements. Under this labour government, we have the real spectre of:
1. ID cards
2. The European arrest warrant
3. The attempt to lock people up for 90 days without charge
4. Parliament square being off limits to protesters
5. Old men being arrested and ejected from Labour party conferences for heckling under terrorism legislation
6. Councils staking out homes to check where parents at schools actually live
7. Constant assaults on free speech in the name of political correctness to the point where comedians have been concerned as to what they can joke about
8. The attemted exemption of parliament from FOI legislation
9. DNA being kept on everyone arrested even when not charged
1984 is here already, if you hadn't noticed and it is a labour government that has made it so
Complain about this comment
Re 38:
>>>>Cameron is getting a bit tiresome now, isn't he? - looks like what went down here is, whilst sniffing the air in various golf clubs up and down the country, he detects a fair amount of animosity towards the Q word - so, toffee nose wrinkling at the aroma of that particular wind blowing though the portals, what does he do? ... he moves like grease lightening to catch and bottle it with a "policy" announcement! - I'm sorry but stuff like this is just NOT going to get my vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It just staggers me how some people simply do not understand the seriousness of our situation. We are already in debt by anywhere between £ 1 Tillion and £ 2 Trillion (the government won't tell us the exact amount) and our debt is growing by circa £ 20 Billion every month. Servicing the interest on this debt is already costing more than our entire education budget and will rise substantially as global interest rates rise which they surely will over the coming years (they cannot stay at near zero indefinitely). Getting to grips with public spending is not some unnecessary political stunt, it is the biggest and most urgent problem facing the UK at this point in time. Comments like this may convince some people that the UK can live way beyond its means forever but it does not convince me.
Complain about this comment
122. At 10:41am emigrating
It staggers me, too. The vast majority think that we are going back to 'normal' in a few months. They believe the hype of 'green shoots' so evidently pushed by the BBC and the mass media in general.
Back to 'normal' simply isn't going to happen. The best possible outcome is holding the line somewhere around these levels. For years. The worst possible outcome is apocalyptic. And unless someone, anyone actually stands up and tells people the truth, we simply disappear into the vortex ever 'hoping' the economy returns to 'normal'.
We need a man (or woman) for the moment. No one seems to be obliging.
Truth is the new spin.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
sicilian @ 94
well I'm glad I'm not in your little black book! - seriously though, if Cameron wants to convince floating voters like me to back him next year, he's got to do more than this catch the wind sloganeering"
Are you trying to tell us that you are a floating voter? Switching from Labour to New Labour doesn't count, and a brief flirtation with Respect doesn't really count either.
Based on your comments I would have had you down as a firm New Labour voter, times really must be tough for them if you consider yourself to be a floating voter!
Complain about this comment
#122 emigrating
If you're concerned about the national debt, why are you leaping to the defense of the Dave Cameron's policies?
Thus far, all him and George Osborne have done is said they'll reduce the national debt, but once again, they've dodged the detail.
The only person, I think, qualified to run the economy at the present time is Vince Cable.... he's already developed plans and more to the point he's open about them (the Tories probably have too but they're keeping them secret so as not to lose votes).
We need an economist running the economy - not some dodging politician who'll not say what they're going to do just to win a few votes.
Now is not the time for Punch and Judy.
Complain about this comment
#113, dhwilkinson wrote:
"108 fairlyopenmind
The simplistic argument about quangos(QU is 1 letter I think?)that is being implied but won't be carried out. Is what annoys me. What will happen is not a bonfire which is not environmentally friendly but recycling of the quangos."
Have to wait and see. I couldn't justify a simple slash and burn approach to public costs. (Although the Canadians did some years back, to tackle massive national debt. It was painfull but worked. Of course they have many less people.)
"That's why (IMHO) Brown got into so much trouble over the 10p tax band... It should have been easy to say that a 10p band would ONLY apply to people with income less than £N,000. Instead we have Special Payments, complicated forms to complete to claim back money, etc, etc, and he's still not out of the woods!"
DH: Kind of agree with you. Must be some explanation for it though. Like you'd have to include wealthy families where a partner has a part time job etc. Don't know!
FOM: Tax is personal, so in theory blind to the overall wealth of a family? I'd have been happy to see the partners of wealthy individuals, who do part-time low paid jobs slip through the net - as long as the poorest folk didn't get hammered. That's my beef. Tax thresholds are too low anyway, but to withdraw the 10p band was unforgivable.
"BA made £900MIL profit the year before a £400MIL loss. When should it have been addressing cost-base? "
I think I've read or heard that airlines always run on the brink of bankruptcy. The recession can't be doing them any good.
FOM: The air industry as a whole has made profit for a handful of years since WWII. Recession and other global events always strikes them hard. Issue is whether they put themselves into a better position to ride the rough times by even tighter financial management during the good times. Bit like governments...
"I'd quite like a bonfire of regulations that don't have some positive impact on the way businesses work."
The old cutting red tape chestnut. Another tory favourite. You are in danger of being tempted to the dark side!
FOM: The tax-code in the UK runs to around 10,000 pages. World-leading. Stuff that I doubt any individual MP has a clue about. Much other regulation slips through from Brussels, with minimal scrutiny by Parliament. Don't like that. There are (I believe) 3,000 new offences introduced since 1997, that mean you and I could and probably do break the law every day. I definitely don't like that!
Saga's pal, Harriet, announced an extraordinarily long summer holiday for MPs as there wasn't anything to occupy them. I'd have made them stay in 12 hours a day over the summer, to read through all the laws, rules and regulations that they've nodded through. If THEY don't understand it, why should WE have to accept it?
I'm in a dark place, but that's a different matter. (Funny thing is that while I didn't/don't like much of what he espoused, I liked the fact that Norman Tebbitt had been a pretty stroppy trade unionist before becoming a Tory MP... So maybe the dark side is tempting. Don't have the physique of a Darth Vader, but hope my children turn out better than me!)
"I don't know where you live!!!!!! I was only fishing. Can't explain what for."
FOM: Previous posts reveal I'm a West Country man by background, now based in the soft underbelly of the South closer to London. Special interests in aviation, the application of IT to support reasonable objectives, sport, making things work. Absolutely no interest in politics, just getting value for those who need it.
Complain about this comment
extremesense 120
No Cameron is on the right track and I think he will do a reasonable job, certainly better than we have had. He has a lot talent in his team that should be able to start dealing with our problems of debt.
Whats missing is the anger the passion, where is the recognition of what ordinary people are feeling and are suffering in this crisis. None of the political parties have acknowledged how bad it must be now and will be for those outside of the Westminister Village. Where is the revolution in thought that we have been here before with the economy and if we do not re-think our whole structure of how the economy is run we will be here again. It is one thing to make the case against this Government for getting us into debt but this constant one Government comes in and spends then the other one comes in and cuts, brings unnecessary pain to the ordinary people. We need an urgent vision and one that should be presented to the public as such, that we must never be in this position again. For too long we have lived with untruths just so political parties can get elected, the public must now be given the opportunity to understand the true meaning of how much a Government can provide.
This would mean we must design a structure for our economy that is based on wealth creation, which in turn will provide the money needed for all the public finances we need. We must work towards being a low taxation Country in order to attract business and to let people keep more of their own money to save and spend. Most all it should be pointed out that we can no longer have Government that will alway provide, this is now impossible, therefore the truth must be told to the public as such. Until someone has the courage to do these things the future will be much the same as the past.
Complain about this comment
I suppose its possible that a focus group at the last minute must have said that it was a provocative title and would upside someone
Where is the nerve and courage and leadership - if you thinks its the right thing to do then go for it - and let the voters appprove / disapprove
And quite frankly if the Tories don't show any nerve in this sort ofthing when how are they any different to Labour ?
I suspect that a big majority of the public think that quango's do not give value for money - so what are you waiting for ?
Complain about this comment
With the sheer number of Quangos around, I wonder if there is a Department somewhere responsible for suggesting what further Quangos are needed to satisfy the needs for Government Ministers and Officals to refer or delegate REAL responsiblities to advoid answering the Public questions on the subjects of where the Buck Stops without referral.
It works something like this:
Caller: Hello! Hello, is that Professor Bird-Brain of Paper Mountain Research Un-Limited.
B.B. Yes.
Caller: This is the Ministry of Form filling here, the Minister is enquiring as to whether you would like to Head -Up our New Quango for Paper Pushing across Whitehall.
B.B. Why - YES, that is a rivetting idea. How much money for Salaries and Expenses do I receive.
Caller: Shall we say 15 Million Pounds a Year for starters.
Six Months Later.
Fax: Ministry For Quangos and Departmental Paper Pushing: To. the Minister.
Dear. Sir.
Our first six Months in operation has been a great success, for this Non-Governmental Department, has now grown to such a degree whereby we are now taking on more Staff everyday to engage with the movements of the vast amounts of Paper-Work that we have created, to a point now whereby we are submitting a further Claim for an additional 15 Million Pounds to cover any short falls for extra costs for additional Staff, Computers, and Offices. etc.
We further expect this Quango to grow in size over the coming Year, and look forward to adding further cost of the ever growing Paper Mountains to be paid for, and bourne out of the Tax - Payers purse.
Your Faithfull,
Lord. Bird-Brain CEO.
Please, send any replies to my Mobile as I am down at the Club-House holding a Quango Convention at the 19th Hole. This Meeting is expected to last a Week or so!
Complain about this comment
5. At 4:05pm on 06 Jul 2009, CaptainJuJu
@moderators
How the hell does "wake me up when there is an election" contravene house rules you idiots.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Somebody in the past called it a "bonfire" I think.
Never mind!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
Complain about this comment
130. At 12:51pm on 07 Jul 2009, CaptainJuJu
I agree CJ.
It seems the moderators have been replaced by a Quango of Brownite Secret Police.
Their sole purpose to stealthily stifle free speech and ensure your opinion is not heard.
I for one think they are worth every penny of the license fee.
Actually I would be happy to pay 10 times the license fee if they would shut this blog down completely.
Oh but I forgot, labour would willingly do that for free.
Undoubtedly this comment will find it's way straight into the moderator's recycle bin, along with my last 20.
Complain about this comment
The simple test for abolishing a Quango is this: -
If the Quango costs, rather than saves/generates money, torch it.
If the Quango is a net money maker, enriching the lives of the residents in its area of influence, torch it.
The Quango probably has a fancy accountant cooking the books.
If the Quango is mostly made up of Labour Brownite cronies, torch it.
The less influence Labour has on our daily lives the better.
Oh and while the firebrands are on their torching spree, take a torch to the biggest Quango in existence - the Labour party.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Isn't the Tory plan to de-politicise the NHS and have it run by an independent board the creation of the biggest quango of them all?"
But if it is an independent 'board', then surely there will be at least some lay 'patient' representatives and/or community representatives and surely they will have been chosen by some sort of democratic process?
Or are we going back to the days of the District Health Authorities?
Complain about this comment
Sigh. I was fairly sure Cameron wouldn't follow through with this idea. But even I am disappointed that he dropped it quite so soon.
Complain about this comment
Bye for now.
Back to the Sky News caption competition.
Visit the Adam Boulton Blogg where all are welcome; an Oasis in a sea of left wing labour moderation.
Complain about this comment
92 sicilian
If I am one of the two that you choose to ignore and I probanly am,
I have not mentioned Hague to you, just passed on a little harmless banter,so my little Dutch non voting Tory I think you may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick once again. even though you are not talking to me I hope that the news you had a little while ago was good news regarding your health, and I hope that your ever faithful Nigella is keeping fit and well.Try to lighten up old chap, this will all be going on when you and I are well gone.
Complain about this comment
LondonHarris #129
Absolutely brilliant post. Sounds about right for most of the quangos out there.
Quangos were supposedly created to be independent from politics, so that they could use their powers to scrutinise the government's decisions and policies. So why is it that governments are allowed to create quangos, to me, that takes the whole independent part out of the equation. It also doesn't help when we have so many quangos who have overlapping responsibilities, thereby, doing the same pieces of work multiple times. At least with a selection of choices, the government can always choose the best one to match their needs at the time.
To me, quangos were created for the politicians to hide behind. If something goes wrong then the politicians target the quango, the quango gets demolished then the following day a new and better quango is set up to do the same work filled with all the same workers but needing a higher budget to ensure that problems don't happen again. Then we need a new quango to oversee the running of the new replacement quango. Quangos take responsibility and accountability away from government. Then to top it all off, all these quangos are run by members of the same elite group the politicians are part of.
Quangos waste money, achieve very little with the resources given to them and there's no accountability to the public. Quangos are effectively run by the government making them part of the public sector, again, how is that an independent organisation from the government who run the public sector?
Also, quangos are paid to come up with pointless, unnecessary rules and regulations that most of the time aren't needed. Yet, they're paid huge amounts of money. At least it's a good way to control unemployment figures.
There shouldn't be a need for these quangos, surely it's the responsibility of parliament to work things out and scrutinise policies proposed by the government. However, if there's too much work to do because like good little bureaucrats, they create so much paperwork that there's not time for anything else, then it should be down to a public debate to get through the matter.
Haven't politicians learnt anything about what happens when they insist on doing everything themselves believing they know exactly what people want?
What I want is an accountable government and parliament, not accountable quangos run by the government and for the government, which is run by the government and just as effective as the government in wasting taxpayer's money and achieving very little with the exceptions for looking after your friends who aren't politicians and creating never-ending bureacracy, which shouldn't be needed in the first place.
I've read books about them and what surprised me most of all was how many were listed and those lists were only for some of the quangos currently in existence. The vast majority of these came in under New Labour and look how well these quangos have done in keeping an eye on our goovernment, they've failed miserably but there's been no mention of scrapping them considering how useless they are. They're basically Non-Executive Directors of the Board that the government are part of, and Non-Executive Directors are supposed to be independent from the company yet it's surprising at tthe number of companies I've come across (through reading) that have involved Non-Executive Directors being friendly with the other Directors and even sitting together on the Boards of other companies too. It's time to put an endd to this Elite Club, let the people decide whether quangos are the way forward and if so, who should be appointed to run them because we need to take such decisions away from the government. It's time to return power to the people where it began a long time ago when our democracy once meant something to the ruling elites of times past.
Complain about this comment
flamepat on quangos and finance hero@121 on 1984
"Somebody in the past called it a "bonfire" I think.
Never mind!"
Yes it was Thatcher in 1979 then Brown. Nothing happened then or is likely to happen now. Its just an issue taken up by opposition supporters. Like the book 1984. in the 80s we were in a 1984 society because we were airstrip one for the americans and now according to the civil libertarian enthusiasts, we are in a surveilance society.
The Conservatives may have planned to re-use the phrase so we can still \criticise them for it.
Complain about this comment
133 invader zim
#Actually I would be happy to pay 10 times the license fee if they would shut this blog down completely.
well old chap all you have to do is stop reading and writing on this blog and atleast in your life it will be effectively shut down.
#If the Quango is mostly made up of Labour Brownite cronies, torch it.
The less influence Labour has on our daily lives the better
Do you mean the better schools, hospitals, police, nurses, doctors, and the infinitely better standard of living for the working class etc; that Labour have introduced in the last eleven years, you don't need to burn them, the Tories will very quickly destroy them so rest easy old chap.
Complain about this comment
138 Invader Zim
Visit the Adam Boulton Blogg where all are welcome; an Oasis in a sea of left wing labour moderation.
Please let me point out the obvious, oasis are found in the desert not in the sea or in the Tory mutual admiration society that calls itself the Adam Boulton blog where all are welcome except Labour points of view.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
The Conservatives may have planned to re-use the phrase so we can still \criticise them for it."
They MAY have planned to re-use the phrase, or the PR person responsible got the wrong end of the stick OR they set out to embarass Nick with misleading information.
Is it really fair to criticise a party for something they may have done? It seems close to a "thought crime" to me
Complain about this comment
So the cost of a passport is going up by £5 (7%) to cover for the loss in revenue due to the recession. Is this another travel tax?
They'll have us standing up on planes soon.
Complain about this comment
144
Not only what they may have done.
Also what they would (or would not) have done had they been in a position too.
And of course, don't forget, lets criticise them most harshly for what they might do.
Its all good fun, no need to criticise anyone's actual actions anymore, we can simply make them up, then beat them around the head with it.
Complain about this comment
ps (to 145)....the cost of a passport has gone up from £51 in July 2006 - £77.50 now. That's over 50% in 3 years. Scandalous! I demand a quango looks into this....
Complain about this comment
"grandantidote wrote:
Do you mean the better schools, hospitals, police, nurses, doctors, and the infinitely better standard of living for the working class etc; that Labour have introduced in the last eleven years, you don't need to burn them, the Tories will very quickly destroy them so rest easy old chap."
Do you really believe that the standard of living for the working class is "infinitely" better under Labour? It is probably fair that some have a better standard of living, the minimum wage may have helped many but much higher taxes (especially council taxes) have eaten up this wage rise. However I doubt even those who have benefitted are "infinitely" better off - unless you are saying "infinitely" but actually meaning "slightly".
And from personal experience the health service isn't greatly improved under Labour, or at least some services are worse today than they were a few years ago.
Complain about this comment
This blog's getting stale! How about Jack Straw closing the loophole so that war criminals can be prosecuted in this country? Is he hoping he'll get Cherie Blair?
Complain about this comment
"They MAY have planned to re-use the phrase, or the PR person responsible got the wrong end of the stick OR they set out to embarass Nick with misleading information."
if you enter 'bonfire of the quangos' into a search engine you will find that more people than just Nick Robinson were given that impression. Are we really expected to believe that the Conservative party weren't aware what was going out in its name? Talking about quangos issue is a daily mail reader type crowd pleaser. Like taking on immorality in the media(Ofcom).
Complain about this comment
#148
Fret not, grandantidote like his newlabour apologists, confuses better with more.
In what way are schools better when standards are universally acknowledged to be falling? Universities will no longer accept GCSEs and A Levels anymore because standdards have fallen so far. Literacy levels are below the levels pre-newlabour. University drop outs are above the levels pre-newlabour.
Newlabour and all its apologists ahave always confused more of something with better. This probablly goes a long way towards explaining why we now have more government debt and household debt than ever before; or is it better debt under newlabour?
We may indeed have more hospitals but are they better? Many have said they are undoubtedly worse and some a waste of money as they have not confirmed with the simplest of new hospital building practice and will, when newlabour has disappeared for good, be torn down and rebuilt.
We certainly have a great deal more immigration; is it better immigration under newlabour?
We definitely have more police; but are they better? The ongoing enquiry into the G20 riots in the city would appear to imply not.
And as for the better living standard for the working class; where does he get this idea from? There are now more people claiming benefits than ever before; is that somehow better? That's a failure by newlabour in my book and an abject failure at that. Private sector job creation under newlabour for the working classes was pitifully low; just lots of diversity officers for the public sector. Where are the newlabour Nissan factories/Toyota fatories/BMW factories? Where has happened to Rover under newlabour - gone bankrupt and sold for a song to the Chinese.
We've definitely had more under newlabour; more spemding, more hubris; more rhetoric and more debt than under any other government ever before. ANd worse, more failed promises and policies than ever before.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
#133 Yeah the BSP have had a go at mine too, one took 3 days to fail moderation, at whihc point its not worth trying to re-word.
When Post X makes and comment and then you reply they say this is now off-topic.
How are yuo going to have a discussion around anything else other than the very very narrow original article , I see many that are off topic and do not mind it helps with the debate as these issues are not black and white.
Ps maybe its something to do with the fact I mention the Family Courts ?
as this is a very touchy subject for NuLabour as this is where they excell with "balance" to obtain a particular outcome. Much like balnace reporting it means you can reduce the fire say that aimed at the PM by being balanced and bring other parties in , where the only concentration should be on the main issue the PM.
another one for the blog bin
Complain about this comment
1: [Another]''Reform:Invites you to a bonfire of quangos'' is a statment,like the other, not an arguement.
2:I'm not too sure a government that promises to listen, can then go on to have a ''goodfire of quangos''. Aren't many of these quangos advisory services ??
Perhaps' ''We have listened to your arguements,and they are rubbish.Your fired''.
3:As in the who does what,and to whom,in the banking sector,remember you only need one person to be right.Thousands of consultants may produce a consensus,they may produce splits.Their advice may or may not be taken up.
4: From 3,an army of consultants,quangos e.t.c.may indicate that no-one person knows best.Which may indicate that not only do people not know what has happened,no-one actually knows what's going to happen.Which may indicate more finnacial bubbles,more wasted taxes e.t.c.
5: Few quans will go,finnancial governance will muddle through,e.t.c. but (making a few assumptions)........''we do know the sun will rise tomorrow''
6: The foolocracy remains.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I'd have thought that another statement from bonkers Brown was more worth discussing today, his "British Homes for British people" (or whatever it was, I can hardly bring myself to listen to him these days).
Anyway, the gist of the matter is that from now on, at the behest of Brown local councils will do something they claim they already do. Or not do something they claim they don't.
This brings Labour policy in the area up to date and it can now be summarsied as:
"We'll be humane and let all and sundry into the country (you'd be a racist if you didn't) but we won't give them anywhere to live for 5 years although actually of course we will because it would be inhumance not to (and you'd be a racist) so it'll be the private sector housing that gets used which is of course run by those bad 'buy to let' landlords who caused the house price boom that was great at the time but now we realise was bad and in fact that's what we said at the time but the whole world wasn't listening to us and of course it will be the taxpayer that picks up the bill for the housing and in any case only 2% of people in social housing (which used to be council housing until we realised that just by changing the name we could make it better although it did probably take a 200 man quango to come up with the name) are immigrants who have been in the country for less than five years which might sound a bit odd as we said NO-ONE here less than five years could get into social housing but it only sounds odd because you don't understand NewLabour mathematics (which makes you a racist)."
Got that?
Complain about this comment
Nick
Does a Quango exist where its sole purpose is to rebrand the names of government departments, into more punchy acronyms? A nice little earner for somebody! So the new logo for Dep for International Aid becomes UKAid.
You would think that we did not have a spending crisis to deal with.
I suppose that it is too much to hope for that the old staionery etc was used up before the switch to the new logo. Do you think that the recipients of the GBP Billions care about a logo? I bet they think: just keep it coming you suckers!
Complain about this comment
QUANGO
Quids-in Unelected Arbitrary Non-Governmental Opportunists
Complain about this comment
132 IR35 survivor
I keep floating this, and the Mods post it, but I believe the "moderation" or censorship of our posts is against the law.
Yes it is the BBC site but if it offers a service it must operate it lawfully.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Acy guarantees us all the right to hold and exchange opinions with interference from a public body.
This is a qualified "right" and anything that is itself unlawful eg incitement to racial hatred or libel can be censored. "Off topic" or removal of a published post because someone does not like it is of doubtful legality.
Does anyone know how to claim the right ?
Complain about this comment
157 CORRECTION
should read WITHOUT interference not with.
Complain about this comment
#154 spoke to my local labour MP about the PUMA LEP going to Romania
and mentioned "british jobs for british workers" that GB stated
He stated that is the MP that GB had had no right to say that ?
what does that mean and Nick can you find out please ?
These are the REAL stories so where is you analysis of this area.
Failure to do this will only drive people into the arms of the BNP?
Complain about this comment
While we are on the Subject of Quango Mountains overload, how many of you remember back in 2002 when the Post Office was temporary re-branded with the Name: "Consignia", being given this named "Duffer" after anything from a Tummy Bug to a Roman General.
With such a duffer of a Name and costing a howling waste of Public Money this Name was eventually returned to being that of the Post Office once again, after another expensive Paint-Job, and New Heading Paper costing the Tax - Payer another small fortune, while his Lord-Ship Mandy, our Deputy Prime Minster and all around "Nu-Labour" Chief Executive wants to once again Part Privatise our Royal Mail.
It therefore can be of NO wonders to find that we have a glut of Quangos, when you consider the alternatives in the shape of direct Government interferance with everyday issues involving Public Services.
Lets face it even Local Government fairs no better when it come down to having any real Brains, for where else would you find a Road Sweeper or a Dustman called a Borough Engineer, or a Rent Collector called an Accountant.
This and along with a bi-annual repainting of Council vehicles to use up Council Tax - Payers money, while at the same time giving each Local Authority Chief Executive a yearly pay rise to somehow justify their worth.
And, all the time we are complaining about the rising state of Non -Accountable Quangos.
I wonder where and how they learnt so little for so long, so quickly?
Complain about this comment
151 Robin jd
#We may indeed have more hospitals but are they better? Many have said they are undoubtedly worse and some a waste of money as they have not confirmed with the simplest of new hospital building practice and will, when newlabour has disappeared for good, be torn down and rebuilt.
Well I suppose someone as anti Labour as you would think that way, waiting lists for surgery and treatment for cancer and heart disease have dropped from 18 months to 18 weeks from GP to operating table.Both my wife and I have spent time in hospital over the years and despite what you or anyone else thinks the improvement in the hospitals is incredible from the most modern equipment down to the chairs in the waiting rooms, where incidenly the waiting times that used to be measured in hours is now measured in minutes. Your rather ridiculous attempts to further your argument concerning the hospitals being torn down, does you no credit as you and I know.
#We certainly have a great deal more immigration; is it better immigration under newlabour?
I don't recall mentioning immigration, or did you throw that in because your on thin ice on the other subjects
We definitely have more police; but are they better? The ongoing enquiry into the G20 riots in the city would appear to imply not.
Once again what a pathetic attempt to score a point. So twelve years of policing is summed up by you because of a suggestion that there should be a inquiry into the G20 riots.
#And as for the better living standard for the working class; where does he get this idea from? There are now more people claiming benefits than ever before; is that somehow better? That's a failure by newlabour in my book and an abject failure at that.
Of course its probably escaped your notice in your haste to condemn everything Labour that we are in the worst recession that the World has ever seen, I suppose you think that under the Tories there would be full employment and probably paid holidays to Spain for the working class.
What happened to unemployment being a price worth paying. There were almost as many unemployed when Labour came to office as there are now and according to the Tories the country was doing really well, at least now the unemployed get more money to live on and there are schemes to help them get back to work which the Tories want to abolish, minimum wage, the Tories fought tooth and nail to stop it as the did the pensioners winter fuel allowance.
#Where are the newlabour Nissan factories/Toyota fatories/BMW factories? Where has happened to Rover under newlabour - gone bankrupt and sold for a song to the Chinese.
Closed because of the above mentioned recession unlike the steel, oil, coal mining industrie, water, electricity, gas and railways sold by the Tories for a song when times were good according to the Tories.
#We've definitely had more under newlabour; more spemding, more hubris; more rhetoric and more debt than under any other government ever before. ANd worse, more failed promises and policies than ever before.
Yes your right we have had more spending, on hospitals ,schools,increased benefits to the old and the disabled, increased family allowance longer maternity leave for both sexes do I really need to go on . and yes they can be proud of the massive social changes that have been made, more debt than ever before , yes to stop the country going down the tubes, it is a price worth paying, unlike the Tory policies of the eighties and nineties, what failed promises , the lisbon treaty even your own Ken Clarke says thats a red herring,I could go on but I am getting bored and its wasted on you and your kind anyway , so I'll say good night.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS