Park Life

bit harsh on those who cant work because of say, disability Parky! Everyone in Wales has a back problem apparently.

Can't really be arsed to read that but I take it it doesn't back your claim we spend twice as much on Quangos as on the NHS? Some Quangos should undoubtedly go or be cut back but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, some are good value. I'd list NICE and the BBC as examples of this. Why do we pay for the BBC anyway? Scrap the licence fee. Another jobs for the boys middle class cabal. Scarp it. Let it fund itself or fuck off.

I would scrap housing benefit for anybody who hasn't paid UK tax for at least 5 years.

More middle class intelligensia gravy training....Cut the fucking lot of them. The rise of the quangocracy The Tories are targeting the soaring cost of public bodies By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor Thursday, 19 March 2009 The amount of taxpayers' money spent on quangos – short for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations – soared last year by an inflation-busting 12 per cent. Almost 800 such groups, mostly funded by handouts from the state or from levies, have a central role in the administration of the country. These unelected public bodies range from massive employers including the Environment Agency, the Defence Procurement Agency and the Housing Corporation to little-known committees such as the Home Grown Cereals Authority and the British Hallmark Council. Spending on the major quangos – the executive agencies – leapt from £30.8bn in 2006-07 to £34.5bn last year. But they would face severe cutbacks under a Conservative administration determined to reduce levels of public spending, The Independent can disclose. In a speech today, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, will promise to tackle levels of public debt if the party wins the election expected next year. He has already called for the £139.50 BBC licence fee, to rise by £3 on 1 April, to be frozen for the next year in an effort to force public bodies to "deliver more for less". Related articles * Leading article: Addicted to quangos * Search the news archive for more stories The party is working on plans for a massive audit of Britain's "quangocracy" amid suspicions that controls on some of their budgets are lax and that some quangos duplicate the work of others. One shadow cabinet minister said: "The quango state has grown, like Topsy, under Labour. We believe there is substantial scope for real savings in this area, this will be an early priority for an incoming government." Despite promises by ministers to get to grips with Britain's burgeoning collection of unaccountable organisations, their number has fallen only slightly over the past decade. When Labour came to power in 1997 there were 857 "non-departmental public bodies". According to the Cabinet Office, that number fell to 827 in 2007 and 790 last year. But their expenditure is soaring, from £37bn in 2006-07 to £43bn last year, with the taxpayers' contribution rising from £30.8bn to £34.5bn. The largest and most powerful agencies – the so-called executive non-departmental public bodies – employ 92,500 staff. The biggest spender is the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which is responsible for such organisations as the Construction Industry Training Board, the Design Council and the Learning and Skills Council. A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the rising budgets reflected "the Government's increasing investment in education, skills and research during difficult economic times" as well as increasing spending on preparations for the 2012 Olympics in London. Critics accuse the Government of keeping details of spending by quangos under wraps in an attempt to limit political embarrassment. There is widespread disagreement over how much money they get through because of the problem in defining exactly what constitutes a quango. According to one calculation, they administered budgets of £167bn in 2006, including the £112bn budget allocated to the National Health Service. Tory sources accept that the amount of "low-hanging fruit" in Whitehall budgets is limited, but believe quangos could be the most productive area of spending to scrutinise. They also insist that there would be public support for economies, particularly if inefficiencies in quangos' expenditure can be uncovered. One potential area for savings could be the high salaries paid to chief executives of some of the bigger quangos. Dan Lewis, the research director of the Economic Research Council think-tank, said: "The quango was a late 1990s Blairite policy solution. You give it a good name, you set up a fancy website, people are given good titles, it starts off well. And then it starts to lose its way." He said quangos offered a "tremendous reform opportunity" for a Tory government. "We need to look closely – if we are going into a nasty recession – [to check whether] they are engaging in activities which private companies are doing already or whether they are even crowding private sector activity." He added: "I hope very much that David Cameron, soon after taking office, orders that the Cabinet Office quickly restore a full annual quangos report in a clear and accountable break from the past." Mr Lewis said the 400 pages of details published by the Government about quangos' spending had been slashed to 30 pages in recent years. Fat cats: What the bosses earn Alf Hitchcock The outgoing Deputy Assistant Commis-sioner of the Met will join the National Policing Improvement Agency next month. The agency is funded by the Home Office. As its head of leadership programmes, he will be paid an estimated £120,000. Sir Michael Pitt The chairman of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission will receive an annual salary of £184,000 this year. A former council chief executive, Sir Michael will work four days a week to speed up decisions on major planning applications. David Gavaghan The chief executive of the Strategic Invest-ment Board, which oversees public works in Northern Ireland, took home a salary and bonus of £213,000 in 2007. The wonderful world of quangos British Hallmarking Council Oversees the hallmarking of gold, silver and platinum. Funded by a levy from the Assay Offices. Coal Authority The successor to British Coal, it regulates the licensing of mines and deals with subsidence damage claims. Had £27.1m government funding in 2006. DairyCo The former Milk Development Council, a fast-growing body promoting the drink and advising dairy farmers. Raises about £7m a year from levies, equivalent to 0.06 pence per litre of milk produced. Darwin Initiative Offers money and advice on wildlife conservation projects in developing countries. Latest initiatives include work protecting chameleons in Madagascar. The Potato Council Funded by levies on potato-growers and seed merchants. Promotes the health benefits of eating potatoes. Raised almost £6m in 2006. Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine Made up of senior wine experts who advise officials on buying wine for the huge Whitehall cellar holding thousands of bottles. The members are unpaid. Herbal Medicines Advisory Committee Advises the Department of Health on the regulation of herbal products. Meets about six times a year.

We spend £168 Billion on Quangos? Nearly £3000 per capita (including children)? Common sense says that is complete bollocks. Well you're wrong. EU quangos alone are around 30 billion. You know all that shit about how big your sausage is Renty and whether some car sprayer in Hoxton is using the correct water based paint. Most of those are Daily Mail myths though. You are seriously telling me we spend twice as much on Quangos as we do on Healthcare? Howay man. The torygraph Quangos spent £300,000 of taxpayers' money at party conferences Local quangos have been accused of a "perverse" waste of taxpayers' money after it emerged they spent almost £300,000 of taxpayers' money lobbying MPs at political party conferences. By Jon Swaine Published: 2:27PM GMT 28 Dec 2008 Tens of thousands of pounds of the total went on dinners and drinks parties at the autumn conferences, at which officials entertained politicians in an attempt to win more public funding. The money was spent by staff from Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which were set up by the Government in 1999 to "spread economic prosperity" and "bring fresh vitality" to their areas by encouraging investment. Arm the people! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...onferences.html

There is self-perpetuating middle class elite (think tanks, quangos, quasi Eu bodies, most of the Eu itself, cunts in our Govt with no job desription or misson but giving advice as to the size of the new 2p coin or trade with Barbados) who are sucking us dry....Get rid of all of it. ALL OF IT!! ARM THE PEOPLE!

Save 100 billion across the EU zone per year by chucking all the global warming crap in the bin. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4849167.ece

We spend £168 Billion on Quangos? Nearly £3000 per capita (including children)? Common sense says that is complete bollocks. Well you're wrong. EU quangos alone are around 30 billion. You know all that shit about how big your sausage is Renty and whether some car sprayer in Hoxton is using the correct water based paint.

CUT IT ALLLLLL!!!

New Open Europe research finds that EU regulation has cost UK economy £124 billion since 1998; UK laws are on average around 2.5 times more cost effective than EU laws Open Europe last week published the most comprehensive study to date on the costs of regulation to the UK economy since 1998. Based on over 2,300 of the Government's own impact assessments, Open Europe has found that regulation has cost the UK economy £176 billion since 1998. Of this amount, £124 billion, or 71 percent, had its origin in EU legislation. The cost of regulation in 2009 stands at £32.8 billion. Of this 59 percent, or £19.3 billion, stems from EU legislation. Since 2005, when the UK Government launched its 'better regulation' agenda, the cost of regulation has doubled - although both the Government and the EU Commission have taken some positive steps to address overly burdensome laws. The research also estimates the average benefit/cost ratio of EU regulations at 1.02, and UK regulations at 2.35. In other words, for every £1 of cost, EU regulations introduced since 1998 have only delivered £1.02 of benefits, meaning that on average it is 2.5 times more cost effective to regulate nationally than it is to regulate via the EU. Cut all this shit as well.

If we're looking at low impact cuts I'd start here: But more than 12½ years later the great "bonfire" Mr Brown spoke of remains unlit. In fact, the cost of executive agencies, advisory bodies, independent monitoring boards and other quangos has mushroomed under New Labour. Spending on such agencies soared to £167.5billion in 2006, up from £24.1bn in 1998. Research revealed for the first time this weekend shows that over the past two years ministers have created 200 quangos. The new study, which will become available online to the public this week, has been put together by the Economic Research Council, Britain's oldest think-tank. By trawling through a forest of government accounts, the ERC has created a database that allows users for the first time to see how the quango state has grown since 1998 and how its payroll - and its pay - has grown exponentially. 1. Cut deep as above. 2. Cancel all new defence procurement and get out of Afghanistan. (Keep nuke subs only). 3. Cut NHS management, hire more nurses and doctors. (Cut GP pay...why are they earning upto £115,000 a year anyway??) 4. Bank tax on profits for all banks in the UK and bank taxes across the EU and mega taxes on bonuses. If you want to fuck off to America go ahead. 5. Scrap all taxes on small business that employ more than 5 people and with a turnover of less than 1 million inc corporation tax. 6. Scrap all but the most necessary liason agencies with the EU (we spend 30 billion on quasi-EU bodies. 7. Set timetable for reimbursment of the public purse from bailout banks. 8. Invest in medium sized industry in high unemployment zones, create tax breaks for foreign private capital to invest in such zones. ...for starters...

I wish someone had the moral courage to stand up to rating agencies and bring them to account for their part in what amounts to fraud (rating securities at triple A when they knew they were shit) over the last few years. I would have had them all strung up from lamposts in London long ago. I'm fukcing serious they are a menace and a hinderance to society as a whole, especially a progressive society like the UK which has been one of the most successful with immigration and job creation and fair play as against the whole of Europe put together. The real friction here is that the markets have been unhappy with Labours high spending on the NHS and welfare for a long time and see this as their chance to realign British politics. They don't like it if money is syphoned away from the markets and given to the people it really is as simple as that.

Our debt is basically on a par with the Eurozone, yet it is portrayed in the media as an economy breaking monster which is total bollocks. 1 Zimbabwe 304.30 % 2 Japan 192.10 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 185.00 4 Lebanon 160.10 5 Jamaica 131.70 6 Singapore 117.60 7 Italy 115.20 8 Greece 108.10 9 Sudan 104.50 10 Iceland 100.60 11 Belgium 99.00 12 Nicaragua 87.00 13 Israel 83.90 14 Sri Lanka 82.90 15 Egypt 79.80 16 France 79.70 17 Germany 77.20 18 Portugal 75.20 19 Hungary 72.40 20 Canada 72.30 21 Jordan 69.90 22 United Kingdom 68.50 23 Austria 68.20 24 Ghana 67.50 25 Malta 66.20 26 Cote d’Ivoire 63.80 27 Ireland 63.70 28 Netherlands 62.30 29 Philippines 62.30 30 Norway 60.20 31 India 60.10

After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national Debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It was primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending. Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of: * Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) * Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS and other banks. Although 60% of GDP is alot it is worth bearing in mind, that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan for example have a National debt of 194%, Italy is over 100%. The US national debt is close to 71% of GDP. [see other countries Debt]. Also the UK has had much higher National Debt. e.g. after the second world war it was over 180% of GDP. For me a country like the UK can handle debt at much higher levels, I suspect the raw focus on debt right now has more to do with political engineering and public perception scare tactics than the reality justifyies. Agnecies cutting our credit rating? What agency has the balls to do that anyway, the same ones that have been completely wrong about everything and every crisisn since the second world war? They are just tools of the ruling elite who are protecting their cash rather than a group of concerned experts worried about the UK, they don't give a fuck about the UK.

Would have been better to wait another 6 or so months before the cuts. What we have here is a soverign Govt running in fear of the markets at a time the markets are at their most vulernable worldwide. This would have been a good time to cull the markets with fair play legislation and tranches of wealth sharing taxes actually.

"Capitalism is failing due to it's inability to channel wealth back to the periphery". Geroge Soros. Financial investor.

As soon as there was a hung parliament he gets taken aside and made offers regarding his career etc and all this idealism goes out the window. Same as it ever was. Wealth is basically created by the ideas, intelligence and skills of the people and mostly they are the last to benefit...Hmmm...

People worried about shit like this should take a closer look at how the ECB borrow money.

Still think this was completely made up to pacify Keegler.

Get FF mate.

What do you think motivates the FT and it's readers? Overall social welfare or listed companies stock prices? The two are intrinsically linked. But if it came to tough decisions, which would they prioritise? I would like to think they would give a balanced view based on the data. Dodging the question. You'd be wrong. They'd say "fuck jobs, fuck healtchare, fuck education, fuck transport, fuck modernisation, fuck oversight and fuck everything else. The main priority has to be that the market has confidence that the government will bend to it's every whim, whatever the cost to social welfare. If you deviate from this truth even momentarily the market will punish you with a huge plunge." What we have in Eng and the likes of france and Germany is practically socialism with consideration to wealth distribution and the social net compared to say America.

The Govt ain't gonna do nowt. Sooner or later the people are going to have to act in the name of the people. The thinktanks have already seen that average people as such aren't really necessary and we are moving slowly to the post human. There will be pockets of maga wealthy and vaste swathes of others left to fend for themseves. It was never (and it isn't possible) the intention of cartel capitalism to provide for the masses. Wealth creation of those kind of gargantuan sums and the whopping bonuses goes back into a very narrow fiancial driven sectors and money continues to accumulate amongst the ruling elite, they have never and will never give a fuck. It surprises me that a country so full of guns hasn't seen more incidents against Wall street and banking types.

Welcome to 2002.

Thinks of new Geordie comic on the scene.....can only come up with "new"? silly boy, back in your box., She was doing Jongleurs round by me 18 months ago so yeah I would say he comedy stardom is relatively new. Seriously, stop it, you're clueless. you might be able to bumble your way around football banter, but you've got no idea what you're talking about. She's been around on the circuit for 6 years. If you want North Eastern Comics that are breaking ground, try Jason Cook or Chris Ramsey, Sarah Millican is fairly well established iyam. Oh and performing at Jongleurs is not a measure of stardom at all, it's one step removed from a fucking corporate gig. Acts hate doing it because it's office parties and stag dos. Nobody is there for the act, they're there to get pissed. Once again you're talking shit Daniel, so why not make a life-style change and stfu My world is in pieces tbh. Plus you completely missed my point. I can just imagine the triumphant pounding at the keyboard now "This chump knows nothing of the north east comedy scene, I will slay him online"