Quango question

[stitched]

So, how does one define a quango and how many are there in total?

[Ozzie Osmond]

No idea how much or how many but I do know the number exploded under New Labour. Grossly over-expensive talking shops and ripe for cutting.

[stitched]

Holy st
http://tpa.typepad.com/bettergovernment/2008/05/qu...

[Mojooo]

I think they are generally publically funded departments that carry out work but are not directly part of the major govt depts but are funded by but are responsible to them

a fulelr list found here

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/PublicBodies...

there are quite a lot of big names in there that we will have heard of as well as smaller ones like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-departmental_publ...

[Jasandjules]

stitched said:

So, how does one define a quango and how many are there in total?

An organisation which serves no real purpose to society and simply is a drain on the taxpayer, and exists to provide "jobs for the boys/girls".

[Sticks.]

They're an easy target for the media, and some understandably so. But many are very small organisations, usually with subject experts who not only guide govt policy, but also keep it in check where necessary.

Baby/bathwater etc.

[herewego]

Cameron promised us open government so presumably he'll be telling us which ones are unnecessary and being cut.

[turbobloke]

herewego said:

Cameron promised us open government so presumably he'll be telling us which ones are unnecessary and being cut.

Three education related already chopped - Becta, QCDA and GTC.

[Mr_B]

The big question is, how do I get on one if they pay stupid amounts of cash for doing very little ?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Mr_B said:

The big question is, how do I get on one if they pay stupid amounts of cash for doing very little ?

I am reliably informed that changing your name to Mandelson could be a valuable first step!

... although he will pop up somewhere his worm-like skills command an over-generous reward.

Brussells???

[AJS-]

Sticks. said:

They're an easy target for the media, and some understandably so. But many are very small organisations, usually with subject experts who not only guide govt policy, but also keep it in check where necessary.

Baby/bathwater etc.

What's the baby then? We've still had a good few years of rubbish policy, and do we even have 1,162 areas of public policy that need an expert? I would say chuck out the lot and bring in specific expertise where needed.

[Halb]

Mr_B said:

The big question is, how do I get on one if they pay stupid amounts of cash for doing very little ?

Haha, I looked into that

[rs1952]

AJS- said:

Sticks. said:

They're an easy target for the media, and some understandably so. But many are very small organisations, usually with subject experts who not only guide govt policy, but also keep it in check where necessary.

Baby/bathwater etc.

What's the baby then? We've still had a good few years of rubbish policy, and do we even have 1,162 areas of public policy that need an expert? I would say chuck out the lot and bring in specific expertise where needed.

The word "quango" is pretty emotive, but a lot depends on what the "quango" is set up to do.

Example. Labour has recently set up a "Tenant Services Agency" (TSA) This is an outfit which is supposed to keep an eye on/ regulate social housing (Housing Associations). The job used to be done by the Housing Corporation, and the Audit Commission has had a hand in it as well in regard to council hosuing.

The Tories were going to abolish the TSA, the liberals wanted to keep it. That's an interesting one for the coalition then

However, if it is thought that the social housing sector needs a regulator, then somebody is going to have to do it. If, for example, you simply abolish the TSA and move the staff to the Audit commission you've saved bugger all.

[StevieBee]

They have been around longer than you think. Their original intent was to provide a method of management on key public matters but in a way that ensured party politics did not skew how things were done, or that important initiatives were not hijacked by any party to score political points.

Encams was one such organisation, set up in the 70s, established to manage the European Blue Flag Beaches initiative in the UK and also ran (and continues to do so), the Keep Britain Tidy campaign.

WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) is another that has been highly successful is stimulating supply and demand in the recycling sector.

Business Link and regional development agencies are other examples.

Technically, the NHS is a quango.

Some quangos have a set life span and is not uncommon for them to pass into private ownership when management to buy them from the government, putting back a large chunk of the money that had previously been invested in them from the public purse.

Among the good are many bad ones though.

[AJS-]

rs1952 said:

AJS- said:

Sticks. said:

They're an easy target for the media, and some understandably so. But many are very small organisations, usually with subject experts who not only guide govt policy, but also keep it in check where necessary.

Baby/bathwater etc.

What's the baby then? We've still had a good few years of rubbish policy, and do we even have 1,162 areas of public policy that need an expert? I would say chuck out the lot and bring in specific expertise where needed.

The word "quango" is pretty emotive, but a lot depends on what the "quango" is set up to do.

Example. Labour has recently set up a "Tenant Services Agency" (TSA) This is an outfit which is supposed to keep an eye on/ regulate social housing (Housing Associations). The job used to be done by the Housing Corporation, and the Audit Commission has had a hand in it as well in regard to council hosuing.

The Tories were going to abolish the TSA, the liberals wanted to keep it. That's an interesting one for the coalition then

However, if it is thought that the social housing sector needs a regulator, then somebody is going to have to do it. If, for example, you simply abolish the TSA and move the staff to the Audit commission you've saved bugger all.

Well I don't think we even need social housing in the first place, never mind a regulator for it.

But accepting that we have social housing, why does it need regulating? Beyond the normal housing regulations of local councils or the law?

StevieBee said:

WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) is another that has been highly successful is stimulating supply and demand in the recycling sector.

Presumably by producing lots of rubbish?

Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 8th June 00:40

[rs1952]

AJS- said:

rs1952 said:

AJS- said:

Sticks. said:

They're an easy target for the media, and some understandably so. But many are very small organisations, usually with subject experts who not only guide govt policy, but also keep it in check where necessary.

Baby/bathwater etc.

What's the baby then? We've still had a good few years of rubbish policy, and do we even have 1,162 areas of public policy that need an expert? I would say chuck out the lot and bring in specific expertise where needed.

The word "quango" is pretty emotive, but a lot depends on what the "quango" is set up to do.

Example. Labour has recently set up a "Tenant Services Agency" (TSA) This is an outfit which is supposed to keep an eye on/ regulate social housing (Housing Associations). The job used to be done by the Housing Corporation, and the Audit Commission has had a hand in it as well in regard to council hosuing.

The Tories were going to abolish the TSA, the liberals wanted to keep it. That's an interesting one for the coalition then

However, if it is thought that the social housing sector needs a regulator, then somebody is going to have to do it. If, for example, you simply abolish the TSA and move the staff to the Audit commission you've saved bugger all.

Well I don't think we even need social housing in the first place, never mind a regulator for it.

We have social housing provided first by Councils and later by Housing Associations because private landlords were making a pigs ear of the job. This is a whole topic in itself involving public health legislation, slum clearance etc - it is not many generations ago that there were epidemics of smallpox, cholera in the like in this country because of overcrowded and insanitory conditions that private landlords would not do anything about. The first major move towards local councils providing decent accommodation was the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1919, so the principle has been around for some time

AJS- said:

But accepting that we have social housing, why does it need regulating? Beyond the normal housing regulations of local councils or the law?

I have no view on this -it is for others to decide. That's why I started the sentence with "However, if"