'A bonfire of the quangos'...?
Are you in favour of "a bonfire of the quangos"...?
Well so too is the Tory leader - it's the title of a speech he's delivering today.
And so is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne. On Friday he promised one.
As did the shadow chancellor way back in 1995 - a man you may know called Gordon Brown.
And, I'm sure that Margaret Thatcher was in favour as well - although I can't find evidence that she used the exact phrase.*
Politicians of all colours promise to light a match underneath quangos ("quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations" now you ask) for the same reasons. They spend a lot and they're not very democratic.
Today in a speech Mr Cameron will argue that: "The growth of the quango state is...,one of the main reasons people feel that nothing ever changes, nothing will ever get done" and promises "a massive shift in power from bureaucracy to democracy...(from) elites to people from quangos to you".
He will, no doubt, point to the creation by this government of dozens of new quangos - some estimates put it at 70.
Aware that this was coming Labour got their retaliation in first alleging that the Tories have talked about creating 17 new ones of their own - ranging from the Office of Tax Simplification and Office of Budget Responsibility to a Military inquest family advisory service and International Aid Watchdog.
So the question worth asking today is, perhaps, not why don't politicians abolish quangos but why, despite the obvious objections, they choose to create them and allow them to grow?
Partly it's because politicians are under pressure to "take the politics out of ..." many areas they have responsibility for (whether setting interest rates or managing examinations).
Partly it's because cynicism about politicians has led people to be more prepared to believe "independent" bodies (remember John Gummer force feeding his daughter with a burger to reassure about BSE?).
Partly they allow politicians to put controversial decisions at arms length from them ("Sats went wrong? Blame the QCA"). All this makes talking about abolishing quangos easier than doing it.
David Cameron today argues that there are three good roles for quangos - what he describes as "technical", "fairness" and "transparency" - but argues that they should not make policy. Thus he plans to say that: "Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist".
Important phrase that - "as we know it". He's not proposing scrapping the 800 strong body that regulates and acts as the competition authority for the communications industry.
He wants it to stop doing things which he believes that civil servants and politicians should - proposing, for example, how to save Channel 4 or regional ITV news.
Broadcasting industry sources tell me that perhaps just a handful of Ofcom officials deal with such matters and that once they've written their reports they hand them to the politicians to debate and decide on.
So, are we set not so much for a bonfire of quangos but for a pruning of them?
* It was three decades ago - in 1978 to be precise - that a pamphlet - The Quango Explosion - written by two Tory MPs Philip Holland and Michael Fallon first (to my recollection) got this debate moving.