Quangos: The Unseen Government of the UK

[david_carnell]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Instead of the Potato Board as a whipping boy -

> where do you stand on the Government Hospitality

> Advisory Committee on the Purchase of Wine? (Apart

> perhaps from wanting to join the tasting panel?)

Not that I'm ignoring the rest of your more interesting points (I'll come back to those later) but this is more fun. Taken from the HoC Hansard in December:

Francis Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the operating costs were of the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine in 2006-07; and how many full-time equivalent staff support the committee.

Meg Munn: The operating costs of the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine amounted to approximately ?8,024 for financial year 2006-07. One Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, the Head of Government Hospitality, is Secretary to the Committee, spending approximately 10 to 15 per cent. of their time on support for the Committee and managing the Government cellar.

Now, Governments hold receptions - wine is drunk. Would you prefer all heads of state to have tap water?

And it costs ?8k a year.

Next!

[DaveR]

"Do I want my children's schooling to be run by the lowest bidder in a dutch-auction?

Do I want my hospital to be staffed by those on the lowest wages to reduce overheads?"

Why do you assume that you can't choose what you regard as the best overall value - after all, you do it every day when you buy all sorts of other products (including very complicated and important ones - pensions, mortgages etc.), and others already make similar choices in relation to health and education.

[SeanMacGabhann]

But the truth is, despite what economic thinking would have us believe, is that people do not do a cost/benefit analysis on everything they do. You might, others might, but the majority of people just don't (at least not for everything)

Should they? Says who? In the words of Marmora Man that sounds like "it implies "they" know better then "them". "

The kind of bespoke private solutions favoured by MM and DaveR work, not because of any superior methodology within business, but precisely because they don't have to look after 50-60 million people. If a problem with the NHS is nurses on a minimum wage then let's pay them more - be it from the defence budget or higher taxes.

Private companies NEED big government. They are the biggest welfare mothers in the country. If they paid the legitimate taxes they owe and didn't set up off-shore tax havens, then we might see a lower base rate of income tax for the individual.

But let's imagine utopia - let's imagine not 10% tax, but 0% tax - now if only there were places where that was true so we could see what marvellous societies exist there - oh look

Heaven?

[david_carnell]

I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now, Governments hold receptions - wine is drunk.

> Would you prefer all heads of state to have tap

> water?

>

> And it costs ?8k a year.

>

> Next!

OK - hands up - a very poor example!

I should stick to the bigger picture and not devil in the details!

[????]

When I have time I will enter the fray largely on MMs side certainly arguing against the prejudice dogma written about that demonised by the left word."privatisation"....Libeterian-anarchists unite..or something

[SeanMacGabhann]

ah, a belated entry to the fray ????

To be fair to most of the contributions so far, I don't see much dogma - good, hard examples yes... dogma, not so much

[david_carnell]

We humbly await your entry m'lud ????.

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> But the truth is, despite what economic thinking

> would have us believe, is that people do not do a

> cost/benefit analysis on everything they do.

Few do it consciously - but most of us do it unconsciously every day - shall I walk or take the bus? Shall I eat in / out tonight? Am I happy for my child to be schooled down the road or do I forego my annual holiday to send him / her to the local prep? Etc Etc ETc

> The kind of bespoke private solutions favoured by

> MM and DaveR work, not because of any superior

> methodology within business, but precisely because

> they don't have to look after 50-60 million

> people. If a problem with the NHS is nurses on a

> minimum wage then let's pay them more - be it from

> the defence budget or higher taxes.

Even if, as you believe but I would dispute, private business methodology is no better - if they work and the results are better why choose a less effective alternative?

> Private companies NEED big government. They are

> the biggest welfare mothers in the country. If

> they paid the legitimate taxes they owe and didn't

> set up off-shore tax havens, then we might see a

> lower base rate of income tax for the individual.

Now you are talking about regulating - which can be an appropriate role for government / state. I question this, apparently instinctive, dismissaal of buiness as bad and in need of regulation by the good guys. However, you need to define "legitimate taxes". Very few companies go for tax evasion - but many legitimately minimise tax bills because legislators cannot draft cler and comprehensive legislation. However, if the State had a smaller role - taxes would be lower, the incentive to avoid paying would be less and tax take would improve. cf: Laffer Curve theory

> But let's imagine utopia - let's imagine not 10%

> tax, but 0% tax - now if only there were places

> where that was true so we could see what

> marvellous societies exist there - oh look

Of the states nominated - several are currently experiencing major turmoil, famine, devastation and civil war - unlikely to be the result of tax legislation. Others, quite properly, tax the companies that use the services of the tax haven they have created - this would, I think, accord with your views that business should pay taxes? In the UAE they use oil revenue, business taxes and ex pat taxes to avoid having to tax nationals. The state is quite small and individual freedom to spend their money as they wish correspondingly high - however, the nature of Islamic government does create other restrictions on individual liberty that you and I would probably resent, but that's not the fault of the tax system.

> Heaven?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Economy and people - thought this was interesting earlier this week

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/may/20/consumeraffairs.economics

Re:

That doesn't answer my question of HOW business would deal with those volumes - there just isn't a way to turn a profit from 60 million people's ailments - not without taking a good hard look at those pesky unprofitable patients

I don't instinctively dismiss businesses - I merely point out that a) their goal is necessarily different to that of human beings and what makes us genuinely happy and b) business SAYS it doesn't want regulation but as you know all too well, it knows where to run to if it really messes up. And it's not other businesses. How anyone post ENron, Northern Rock et al says there is no need for regulation I have no idea. "Legitimate Taxes" I would define as if I'm paying my full share, other companies are paying their full share, then no company should get away with, however legally, avoiding theirs. I don't think a lack of clear legislation is hindering them in this activity.

Countries with no involvement or interest from it's citizens in turmoil and civil war you say? Who would have thunk it? Ok that's a facile conclusion to draw but nor would I dismiss it completely. The fact is with all of the various countries, systems and peoples in the world you can't actually pinpoint one which is both stable and with the minimal government you seek - or am I wrong? You would think that if it was such a good idea more countries would have adopted it, no?

[dc]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK - hands up - a very poor example!

>

> I should stick to the bigger picture and not devil in the details!

But I think my original point was that if you actually bother looking at the details (which david_carnell has further illustrated) you actually find out that your argument has no basis in fact?

Unfortunately, slack-arsed journalists also don't bother with such trivialities. Why should they when it's just easier to add one para of 'analysis' to the stuff that the 'independent' Taxpayers Alliance excrete into their inbox?

Frankly, I think you should spend a lot more time on the details and a little less time regurgitating what is effectively propagandist rhetoric or - for want of a better word - shite.

I would never argue that government does not need to be improved - who would? - but I certainly wouldn't approach any reform wielding a sledgehammer rather than a notebook.

[BJL]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dc Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > The British Potato Council is one of a number

> of

> > 'Levy Boards'. It's an industry organisation

> paid

> > for entirely by producers and wholesale

> purchasers

> > of potatoes. So, no, we wouldn't suffer if it

> went

> > but, as none of our taxes are being used to pay

> > for it anyway, we're not suffering now are we?

> The

> > British potato industry just might be a little

> bit

> > miffed I suppose.

>

> If potato producers are required to pay a levy -

> that is a cost to them. In the same way that

> staff, seed, harvesting etc is a cost. When they

> sell their potatoes they recover those costs +

> their margin. So ultimately the Potato Board Levy

> comes thru' as a tax on potato consumers.

But isn't membership of the BPC entirely voluntary? In that case, potato producers who have joined must have decided that the benefits they gain outweigh the membership costs? Good business sense...

In any commercial business, the aim is to pass on costs to the consumer. So, using the "BPC levy argument", expenses like company cars, non-economy class air travel, private health care, bonuses etc are also "a tax on...consumers" - correct, MM?

(Edited for grammar.)

[Marmora Man]

BJL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In any commercial business, the aim is to pass on

> costs to the consumer. So, using the "BPC levy

> argument", expenses like company cars, non-economy

> class air travel, private health care, bonuses etc

> are also "a tax on...consumers" - correct, MM?

A Levy Board is funded by a levy on, in this case, potato producers. Government legislation estbalishes the Levy Board and sets the levy fee by statute. No choice for the producer - it is therefore a tax on producers and consumers. It may be that the Potato Board does wonderful things and is worth every penny, but it does represent Government spending and it, and many similar institutions should be questioned as to value for money for us the taxpayer.

[Marmora Man]

dc Wrote:

> Frankly, I think you should spend a lot more time

> on the details and a little less time

> regurgitating what is effectively propagandist

> rhetoric or - for want of a better word - shite.

Play the ball not the man.

My basic premise on this thread and elswhere on this forum is that government should be smaller and taxes lower - giving the individual greater freedom of choice as to what to do with their time and resources. The Tax Payers Alliance is a pressure group and lobbies on behalf of consumers - that doesn't make its position or statements invalid.

[????]

Sean Private companies are job and wealth creators which is to the benefit of us all, if we overtax them (or indeed any wealth creating individual) many of them will go overseas to the loss of us all - including the Exchequer and our Public Sector. Sadly, by and large, public sectors workers as we have them don't contribute much directly -the hidden contribution of keeping people healthy and educating them is huge of course but doesn't pay any of UK plc's bills...however, horrible capitalist bastards, corporates and their taxed employees do. We live in a global economy (thank god as it is globalisation that is pulling literally millions of people out of poverty in the third world not patronising handouts by the developed economies) but 'capital' and skill will chaise the money, if we increase taxes too much we lose much of that...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Good to see you carve out some time at last ????

This is all an interesting debate but before it goes on you can't seriously take me to be genuinely anti-business/economics/etc? The global economy? Even better

But it's not some neutral, benign energy. It needs controlling. Left to itself it would still argue for slavery. Left to itself it said introducing a (paltry) minimum wage would devestate the economy and British jobs. That didn't happen did it? And while it is the engine for growth in many emerging countries it shouldn't be forgotten that it is also responsible for the shocking conditions many people have to work in to produce... oooh whatever - a plastic football, cheap jeans whatever. In effect, slavery. Youcan argue about the relative merits of local wages but it is pressure from outside companies which is the cause of conditions improving in many sweatshops - the companies themselves, having washed their hands by outsourcing contracts have long been aware but have had little to no interest in improving conditions. This is no small esoteric point... it's pretty fundamental to how we as human beings define how we treat others

Just as union power is (was?) an effective tool against the exploitation of labour post industrial revolution, but needed it's power checked when it forgot what it was for, companies whose wealth and power eclipse many many countries need to be controlled - or it'll be Mega-City One for all of us ;-)

[mockney piers]

"Left to itself it would still argue for slavery."

and indeed has literally millions trapped in indentured labour, much of it effectively slavery, lets not kid ourselves.

On a side note I'm entitled to a St Kitt's & Nevis passport, may have to check property prices there; and isn't devilling details what the labour party does to questionable intelligence? ;-P

[Marmora Man]

We seem to have drifted away from quangos - but that's fine.

If the premise is that untrammeled power is a bad thing I would have to agree. My position is that untrammeled government power is a bad thing. Certainly as bad, and in my opinion worse, than untrammeled business power. Unquestioning support / belief in the benevolent intentions of government and the state to direct our lives and spend our money is foolish. The argument that we can vote them out if we don't like it is flim flam - government spending and inexorable growth of government spending is culturally embedded in the civil service and politicians. It is not helped by the various lobby groups pressing for government to "do something". To roll back the size and cost of the state is a huge challenge, but one we should take up.

Individuals making masses of contradictory single decisions will more usually come up with the right answers than central dictat.

It was individuals that started and led the anti slavery campaigns not government, individuals that created businesses that give employment and dignity to so many, individuals that founded the original hospitals. On the whole individuals cannot start wars, governments can and do.

Government does not generate wealth creation ? and the benefits ???? describes. It inhibits it.

Government spending is inherently inefficient ? and not just because most politiians are unable to run a whelk stall for profit. For the government to obtain ?1,000,000 to spend it must raise taxes. To raise taxes it must legislate, administer, collect, prioritise and distribute, all of which costs money. It has been estimated (and I regret I cannot find the academic references at this time in the morning) that these costs impose something like a 20% cost on government money.

Therefore government spending of taxpayers money on anything from services to goods is an inefficient use of the country?s GDP. Since every ?1 of government money costs at least ?1.20 (and that assumes total efficiency and effectiveness of decision making and purchasing within government departments).

Reducing government to the minimum necessary, and there?s a great debate to be had on where the line should be drawn, would generate a major benefit to the UK?s GDP and overall economic status.

In my ideal world the Government / the state would be minimal and provide only things like:

Welfare for those unable to help themselves

The armed forces (and I'm prepared to see these "privatised" under regulation)

Diplomacy

Collection of limited taxes

Regulation and monitoring, but not provision, of services such as education, health, employment, health and safety, transport

And not a lot else

I'm sure others will disagree.

[david_carnell]

The Judiciary? Surely the enforcement of contracts and the law would have to remain in the hands of the state?

State spending is not neccessarily as inefficient as you describe. The state is able to negotiate cost due to the relative size of the purchase. To overly simplify this, and to go back to your car metaphor, you buy one car with your money and pay ?x but the state is purchasing 10000 cars and receives substantial cost savings due to bulk purchasing. Economies of scale.

[Marmora Man]

I agree the Judiciary should be somewhere on the list - tho' in theory it's nominally independent of, but funded by, government. To make a political point - the last 10 years of New Labour have probably done more to damage that independence than the previous 200 years.

On economies of scale - granted - but you have to go some to obtain 20% economies, and that assumes the rest fo gov't is efficient.

[Marmora Man]

I promised a while back to post a rather naive paper I wrote for a professional journal on how privatisation of the military might work.

Now out of date it does, in the opening pages, illustrate the background to some of my libertarian / small government thinking.

Here it is!

[SeanMacGabhann]

MM - interesting paper but not one I have to fully respond to as yet- but for now:

Much of what you write is demonstrably true, yet never questions why. The reason so many "consumers" are less happy with the state services than they were post-WW2 is that post WW2, people were regarded more as citizens rather than consumers. A point I will return to..

It has been in private companies interests to whisper in the ear of successive governments, promising to deliver better services. What actually happens is that IF a company can cream off the profitable clients it can deliver a measurably superior service. If it has to deal with the masses, or anything considered the "general public"

it struggles. As does government

The problem with treating us all as "consumers" is that when treated as such we appear to lose civic reponsibility. And even on the consumer side we are pretty rubbish as the western nations you mention rely on their populace being heavily in debt just to keep the wheels turning. Relatively few of us excercise restraint and when our "expectations" aren't met by public service we wail until some company charges us a fortune (more debt) instead of making do

You have also stated in many posts that you are against IDcards - yet it is these same companies whispering in governments ears that is leadingus down that road. On a trivial level my junk mail problem is bad enough as it is - as soon as more of my details get sold in whatever sleazy market these guys decide is best, it will get exponentially worse. Less trivially.. well enough writers have tried to show us the possibilities of what can happen. Maybe it's time teh book club read or re-read 1984 again...

[clive3300]

Whats really so bad with ID cards? It can increase efficiency by giving each person a reference unique identifiable number.

I am from a country that has them, and in my experience a much better system than trying to engage the government (or companies) using the UK proxy system - your post code (which is not properly crosslinked between services, or uniquely identifying). And this proxy system can be a nightmare when you change properties, have multiple properties etc.

Its fine for companies to use as its just a number to identify you uniquely without necessarily having any more information about you.

The UK system seems fairly easy to manipulate for the frauds you read about daily - banks, benefits, property, passports etc etc. If these were linked to a single number this sort of thing can be eliminated.

[david_carnell]

Or makes the situation for fraud worse by having all details in one place rather than spread out.

Someone gets my bank details - an arse but I still have other banks, my passport, NI number, NHS number etc all still safe.

Someone gets my ID card data - they get everything. I'm screwed, am I not?

Show me a data system that cannot be hacked/manipulated and I might reconsider.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Clive does make a good point about their existence in other countries.

To my knowledge there hasn't been any major abuse of such centralised data - but I'm not sure with the way things are going in, say, Italy that I would be too happy. Especially if I was, you know... suspect to that sort of government (dark skin, less skin, gay etc)