Cameron: "a bonfire of quangos"

#3
never going to happen :roll:
believe blair said something similar
and major
and possibly maggie :(

next thing turkeys voting for christmas
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Get real. He will scrap those whose boards have been used as a payoff to ex-members of the Labour nomenclatura and replace them with some offering cushy sinecures to Tories that he wants to remove from more public circulation. Anyway he'll say something different tomorrow, just depends on how he sniffs the wind.

The difference between me and 'Dave' is that I'm a Tory and he isn't.
 
#5
bawhied said:
so according to the interview he is going to get rid of some quangos and creating 17 more. so more of the same.
According to Labour, not the interview. While I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be true, I'm not going to believe any figures put out by Lord Mandleson's Committee for Public Safety through Protection of the Third Way...
 
#8
seaweed said:
Get real. He will scrap those whose boards have been used as a payoff to ex-members of the Labour nomenclatura and replace them with some offering cushy sinecures to Tories that he wants to remove from more public circulation. Anyway he'll say something different tomorrow, just depends on how he sniffs the wind.

The difference between me and 'Dave' is that I'm a Tory and he isn't.
I don't buy this BBC-stirrued up Cameron the chameloen bull.

No one said anything like this about Blair prior to his media-installed election. The media did all it could to show New Labour as the 'right' choice to vote in 1997, but when a Tory comes along, likely to take office, he is attacked for trying to modernise into an electable entity.


I say it once I say it again. Cameron is a clever man, and if what he sees as a winning recipie to debunk the nasty Labour Party by means of PR and modernisation then I support it.

Who the f**k gives a s*t about conservative middle-England anymore? the BBC certainly doesn't, the media don't, the Liberal establishment don't, educational institutions don't.
 
#9
Archimedes said:
bawhied said:
so according to the interview he is going to get rid of some quangos and creating 17 more. so more of the same.
According to Labour, not the interview. While I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be true, I'm not going to believe any figures put out by Lord Mandleson's Committee for Public Safety through Protection of the Third Way...
But Dave never denied that there would be 17 new quangos. no matter what labour say or do dave could have denied it but he didnt.
 
#10
I may well eat these words in a few years time, but as someone who is usually very skeptical about politicians, I'm quite optimistic about Dave. I don't think he'll be the revolutionary leader we could do with right now, but I do think he'll get us slowly back on the right track and undo a lot of the 'police state' scariness that has gone on in the last few years.
 
#12
Tory_Cuts! said:
Tory Cuts!
Congratulations! You're out, err, I mean back.

Our friend could more accurately call himself Tory_Cuts_Or_Labour_Cuts.

As many have pointed out, there are going to have to be drastic cuts after the next election. That will happen irrespective of which party wins the forthcoming general election. If the government continues to fund half of its expenditure by printing money and a further quarter by borrowing, we'll rapidly end up in the same state as Zimbabwe.

The difference is not between Tory cuts and Labour investment. It's between Tory cuts and Labour cuts.

Somehow, I can't see Dave laying off doctors and nurses from the NHS while retaining psychic healers, transgender outreach managers and carbon footprint reduction coordinators, as happened at my local hospital.

I know whose cuts I'd prefer.
 
#13
bawhied said:
Archimedes said:
bawhied said:
so according to the interview he is going to get rid of some quangos and creating 17 more. so more of the same.
According to Labour, not the interview. While I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be true, I'm not going to believe any figures put out by Lord Mandleson's Committee for Public Safety through Protection of the Third Way...
But Dave never denied that there would be 17 new quangos. no matter what labour say or do dave could have denied it but he didnt.
Agreed - he moved the discussion on. Now you can take two views of why he did that

(1) it was possibly damaging to continue with the line of questioning because it would reveal that we'll have more quangos or

(2) he didn't wish to engage in a simplistic numbers game. If you merge (say) 34 quangos into 17, you've created 17 new quangos, yet halved the number of them overall.

The interview suggests that we might, actually, end up with quite a lot of 'new' quangos, possibly more than 17, created out of the ashes of extant ones. Tthe information isn't there, and assuming that we're going to get 17 additional quangos because the Labour party and BBC Breakfast say so and Cameron didn't deny it is at best dangerous and at worst facile.
 
#14
They cost £64 billion a year!? Are they farking serious!?
That's double the defense budget.
I understand that some of them do important work but... no, that's just far too much surely.

64 billion?!
 
#16
Archimedes said:
The £64 Billion figure is disputed.

Some sources reckon that they cost the taxpayer more than £100 billion...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1529667/Taxpayers-foot-huge-bill-for-quango-state.html

On beurocracy! It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't know a fair old proportion of that was paying some design consultant 6 figure sums to come up with their wnak logos, which are all slight variations of the royal coat of arms anyway, equality advisers, mass inflated salaries for the people at the top and bollocks like that. This only happens because they are spending other people's money.


We really need to work on the culture of thrift that exists in the Army. It should be the other way around, national defense should never want for cash, while paper pushing shiney arses should.
 
#17
Has anyone stopped to think that quangos might actually have a useful role? I remember in final days of Major's government there was a campaign against them and they were universally derided but nobody seemed to take stock of their benefits. Governemnt departments don't always have the time or expertise to make every complex deision needed to be made and therefore put togther a team of experts. I just joined one in the Department of Health and I was hugely impressed at my first meeting recently with the array of experts and the professionalism on display. Unaccountable? Well mabe but ultimtely its up to the minister to decide whether or not to follow the advice the committee recommends.
 
#18
Jacques_Bustard said:
Has anyone stopped to think that quangos might actually have a useful role? I remember in final days of Major's government there was a campaign against them and they were universally derided but nobody seemed to take stock of their benefits. Governemnt departments don't always have the time or expertise to make every complex deision needed to be made and therefore put togther a team of experts. I just joined one in the Department of Health and I was hugely impressed at my first meeting recently with the array of experts and the professionalism on display. Unaccountable? Well mabe but ultimtely its up to the minister to decide whether or not to follow the advice the committee recommends.

No problem with the principle of a Quango per se, indeed, I'm glad that certain things are detached and unaccountable. But it just doesn't have to cost so much. Quangos and Govermnet departments need to get over themselves and realise that their scope is limited, they don't need to be constantly expanding.
 
#19
Jacques_Bustard said:
Has anyone stopped to think that quangos might actually have a useful role? I remember in final days of Major's government there was a campaign against them and they were universally derided but nobody seemed to take stock of their benefits. Governemnt departments don't always have the time or expertise to make every complex deision needed to be made and therefore put togther a team of experts. I just joined one in the Department of Health and I was hugely impressed at my first meeting recently with the array of experts and the professionalism on display. Unaccountable? Well mabe but ultimtely its up to the minister to decide whether or not to follow the advice the committee recommends.
I don't think anyone's denying Qangos do have a role. Cameron's point isn't that Qangos are inherently a bad idea - just that they have grown far beyond what's reasonable and proportionate.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top