The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Raggs]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

Well the other guy above stated that actually it wasn't Europe that was the issue, it was Blair and his reforms.

[Random1]

Dr David Starkey is a racist fuckwit

Reckon he’s racist, but he’s not a fuckwit. He’s smart.

And worth a listen if you want to understand the other side of the argument.

[Random1]

I got 10 minutes in or so, and yes, he's making the same complaints, just being more of an ass and a bore about it.

So the poor Tories couldn't do what they want because other people didn't let them. It's all someone else's fault.

In theory then, Labour shouldn't be able to do any better, and we're all buggered regardless.

Is there anyone from the right that you would listen to?

[Random1]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

Well the other guy above stated that actually it wasn't Europe that was the issue, it was Blair and his reforms.

I think starky (and tories in general) believe it’s both. ie that the ECHR still binds us as a Supreme Court and that quangos are full of social justice activists who make decisions without democratic scrutiny.

If you want to listen to the section where he starts to unpack it, listen from about 17:30 onwards.

[Raggs]

I got 10 minutes in or so, and yes, he's making the same complaints, just being more of an ass and a bore about it.

So the poor Tories couldn't do what they want because other people didn't let them. It's all someone else's fault.

In theory then, Labour shouldn't be able to do any better, and we're all buggered regardless.

Is there anyone from the right that you would listen to?

Plenty, I would just rather be without the ad hominins, hyperbole and the pointless "good old days" talk, especially when that's trying to go all the way back to the magna carta days.

I'll try from the 17.30 mark later.

[Random1]

I got 10 minutes in or so, and yes, he's making the same complaints, just being more of an ass and a bore about it.

So the poor Tories couldn't do what they want because other people didn't let them. It's all someone else's fault.

In theory then, Labour shouldn't be able to do any better, and we're all buggered regardless.

Is there anyone from the right that you would listen to?

Plenty, I would just rather be without the ad hominins, hyperbole and the pointless "good old days" talk, especially when that's trying to go all the way back to the magna carta days.

I'll try from the 17.30 mark later.

Yeah, he stays within the current timeframe for quite a few minutes before reverting to type at around the half hour mark!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Dr David Starkey is a racist fuckwit

In his defence he's probably a bigger misogynist than racist.

[epwc]

Reckon he’s racist, but he’s not a fuckwit. He’s smart.

I don't think you can be both racist and smart.

I have listened to plenty of his pompous utterances over the years, he knows lots of big words, speaks very clearly and comes across as super intelligent and knowledgeable. That doesn't mean he is.

What do you mean by right? (ex) Tories that I would listen to? Heseltine, Grieve, Patten, Stewart off the top of my head but none of them are raving loony right wing

[Random1]

Oh, and if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, here’s the lady herself



She starts talking about it from 10 minutes onwards.

I think she’s a cretin, but some of the stuff she talks about in terms of quangos does mirror what I see in my own line of work. There are technocrats in these institutions that carry a lot of power, and it’s all hidden, which makes me very uncomfortable.

[Raggs]

Oh, and if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, here’s the lady herself



She starts talking about it from 10 minutes onwards.

I think she’s a cretin, but some of the stuff she talks about in terms of quangos does mirror what I see in my own line of work. There are technocrats in these institutions that carry a lot of power, and it’s all hidden, which makes me very uncomfortable.

The people that the government chose to actually implement the changes they decide on, are actually doing it? The whole point of a quango is to basically carry out policy, so the government department doesn't have to. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that forces governments to actually use them (or use the one that labour somehow made them use from years ago). Of course quangos have power, they're implementing the changes, but it's all delegated power. Claiming they have power is like claiming a planning officer has power, yes, he can reject a plan, but only due to the power he's given by those above him.

[epwc]

The people that the government chose to actually implement the changes they decide on, are actually doing it? The whole point of a quango is to basically carry out policy, so the government department doesn't have to. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that forces governments to actually use them (or use the one that labour somehow made them use from years ago). Of course quangos have power, they're implementing the changes, but it's all delegated power. Claiming they have power is like claiming a planning officer has power, yes, he can reject a plan, but only due to the power he's given by those above him.

Absolutely

[Brazil]

Reckon he’s racist, but he’s not a fuckwit. He’s smart.

I don't think you can be both racist and smart.

I have listened to plenty of his pompous utterances over the years, he knows lots of big words, speaks very clearly and comes across as super intelligent and knowledgeable. That doesn't mean he is.

What do you mean by right? (ex) Tories that I would listen to? Heseltine, Grieve, Patten, Stewart off the top of my head but none of them are raving loony right wing

Starkey went off reservation a very long time ago, I'm not sure anyone besides fellow loons take him seriously.

[Biffer]

The tories can't even start to put together a plan for electing a new leader, because all but two members of the 1922 committee lost their seats, including both the guys lined up to replace Graham Brady as chair.

Meanwhile Sunak doesn't even want to stay on as long as the party conference, while former ministers are saying they should take six months before appointing a new leader.

[Uncle fester]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

Ultimately they don't want any institutions implementing pesky things like H&S laws or environmental regulations because they get in the way of things like "innovation" and "growth".

Once you knock out the EU bodies, then you water down the domestic ones and turn the country into the US.

[Tichtheid]

The “era of culture wars is over”, Lisa Nandy has promised in her first speech as culture secretary, saying her department will be at the heart of efforts to reflect a more positive and less divisive vision of the UK.

“For too long, for too many people, the story we tell ourselves, about ourselves as a nation, has not reflected them, their communities or their lives,” Nandy told staff at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

“This is how polarisation, division and isolation thrives. In recent years we’ve found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another. And lost that sense of a self-confident, outward-looking country which values its own people in every part of the UK.

“Changing that is the mission of this department. The era of culture wars is over.”

Thank dog for that

This could have been posted in the new thread but it’s appropriate here too

[Random1]

Reckon he’s racist, but he’s not a fuckwit. He’s smart.

I don't think you can be both racist and smart.

I have listened to plenty of his pompous utterances over the years, he knows lots of big words, speaks very clearly and comes across as super intelligent and knowledgeable. That doesn't mean he is.

What do you mean by right? (ex) Tories that I would listen to? Heseltine, Grieve, Patten, Stewart off the top of my head but none of them are raving loony right wing

Of course people can be smart and bigoted. Rewind a few decades or centuries and everyone was a raging racist - surely you’re not saying everyone prior to the 1960s were dumb?

All of those guys are pretty centre right aren’t they? If labour promised to double investment in the army, I reckon Stewart would join the kier labour ranks - and I reckon they’d have him. The Overton has shrunk to a narrow slit!

[petej]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

Ultimately they don't want any institutions implementing pesky things like H&S laws or environmental regulations because they get in the way of things like "innovation" and "growth".

Once you knock out the EU bodies, then you water down the domestic ones and turn the country into the US.

They have succeeded in certain areas like water. It just hasn't gone down very well with the public.

[Random1]

Oh, and if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, here’s the lady herself



She starts talking about it from 10 minutes onwards.

I think she’s a cretin, but some of the stuff she talks about in terms of quangos does mirror what I see in my own line of work. There are technocrats in these institutions that carry a lot of power, and it’s all hidden, which makes me very uncomfortable.

The people that the government chose to actually implement the changes they decide on, are actually doing it? The whole point of a quango is to basically carry out policy, so the government department doesn't have to. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that forces governments to actually use them (or use the one that labour somehow made them use from years ago). Of course quangos have power, they're implementing the changes, but it's all delegated power. Claiming they have power is like claiming a planning officer has power, yes, he can reject a plan, but only due to the power he's given by those above him.

Yeah, I think that’s their point - they’ve been handed too much power.

[Raggs]

Oh, and if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, here’s the lady herself



She starts talking about it from 10 minutes onwards.

I think she’s a cretin, but some of the stuff she talks about in terms of quangos does mirror what I see in my own line of work. There are technocrats in these institutions that carry a lot of power, and it’s all hidden, which makes me very uncomfortable.

The people that the government chose to actually implement the changes they decide on, are actually doing it? The whole point of a quango is to basically carry out policy, so the government department doesn't have to. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that forces governments to actually use them (or use the one that labour somehow made them use from years ago). Of course quangos have power, they're implementing the changes, but it's all delegated power. Claiming they have power is like claiming a planning officer has power, yes, he can reject a plan, but only due to the power he's given by those above him.

Yeah, I think that’s their point - they’ve been handed too much power.

But he blames it on labour. Government's get to choose how much they use quangos. They can choose to work harder themselves and do the job themselves, or they can choose to hand it over. No one forced them to hand the job over. This isn't some thing that tied their hands, it's something they freely chose.

It's like me ordering food instead of making it myself, then being upset at the restaurant for making it for me.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The Tory party has only been in power for 35 of the last 45 years, clearly it's the fault of the other lot, or even the 'others', those nebulous folk led by commie international bond traders conspiring to truss up Truss and bring down Boris

[Biffer]

The Tory party has only been in power for 35 of the last 45 years, clearly it's the fault of the other lot, or even the 'others', those nebulous folk led by commie international bond traders conspiring to truss up Truss and bring down Boris

32 I think. But your point stands.

[dpedin]

The people that the government chose to actually implement the changes they decide on, are actually doing it? The whole point of a quango is to basically carry out policy, so the government department doesn't have to. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that forces governments to actually use them (or use the one that labour somehow made them use from years ago). Of course quangos have power, they're implementing the changes, but it's all delegated power. Claiming they have power is like claiming a planning officer has power, yes, he can reject a plan, but only due to the power he's given by those above him.

Yeah, I think that’s their point - they’ve been handed too much power.

But he blames it on labour. Government's get to choose how much they use quangos. They can choose to work harder themselves and do the job themselves, or they can choose to hand it over. No one forced them to hand the job over. This isn't some thing that tied their hands, it's something they freely chose.

It's like me ordering food instead of making it myself, then being upset at the restaurant for making it for me.

Govs have the power to create or shut down a quango, they do it all the time. Sure they have to make sure something is in place to implement their policies but that is entirely within the power of the Gov.

In terms of leftie Civil Servants 'controlling' what happens and gets done, in my experience it is usually the civil servants explaining in simple terms the implications - good and bad - of what the politician wants to do and the politician spitting the dummy out of the pram as a result! Rather than the politician explaining to the public why their madcap ideas are not being implemented ie they were never going to happen in the grown ups world, they tend to blame the 'stubborn/leftie civil service' or the bureaucratic Quango getting in their way. Our previous Gov did this all the time - throw out populist nonsense about what they were going to do, usually without telling HoC and driven by the right wing press, then get told by civil servants the significant legal, financial or geopolitical barriers to their madcap idea, take the huff, put on a pretend angry face and then blame the woke, avocado eating, leftie, enemies of the people, North London elite for denying the 'will of the people', which had never been tested as being the will of the people! Being the adults in the room can be a dangerous job!

[Raggs]

Yeah, I think that’s their point - they’ve been handed too much power.

But he blames it on labour. Government's get to choose how much they use quangos. They can choose to work harder themselves and do the job themselves, or they can choose to hand it over. No one forced them to hand the job over. This isn't some thing that tied their hands, it's something they freely chose.

It's like me ordering food instead of making it myself, then being upset at the restaurant for making it for me.

Govs have the power to create or shut down a quango, they do it all the time. Sure they have to make sure something is in place to implement their policies but that is entirely within the power of the Gov.

In terms of leftie Civil Servants 'controlling' what happens and gets done, in my experience it is usually the civil servants explaining in simple terms the implications - good and bad - of what the politician wants to do and the politician spitting the dummy out of the pram as a result! Rather than the politician explaining to the public why their madcap ideas are not being implemented ie they were never going to happen in the grown ups world, they tend to blame the 'stubborn/leftie civil service' or the bureaucratic Quango getting in their way. Our previous Gov did this all the time - throw out populist nonsense about what they were going to do, usually without telling HoC and driven by the right wing press, then get told by civil servants the significant legal, financial or geopolitical barriers to their madcap idea, take the huff, put on a pretend angry face and then blame the woke, avocado eating, leftie, enemies of the people, North London elite for denying the 'will of the people', which had never been tested as being the will of the people! Being the adults in the room can be a dangerous job!

So, what you mean to say, is that if a government had a qualified cabinet, with knowledge about their areas, they'd avoid more issues with the civil service pointing out that what they want to do is impossible/illegal? And if, just spitballing here, the attorney general was not a member of the governments party, but instead a highly qualified lawyer, they'd be less likely to run into these issues at implementation stage since he'd just have told them it was illegal straight away? And, just totally reaching, if said government had plans on reforming planning laws etc, and they appointed a solicitor general who was a barrister with an expertise in planning and local government, they might even be able to get stuff done efficiently?

So in that above scenario, perhaps Quangos wouldn't be the killers of all the governments great plans?

[Lobby]

In 2010 Cameron's Government promised a 'bonfire of the Quangos" and said they would get rid of and/or merge many of the existing quangos and replace the 'lefty' Blairite appointees at the heads of these organisations.

The Tories had 14 years to change the quangos and make their leaderships more right wing. In many cases they did so, and yet now, having lost the election they are once again complaining about the 'lefty' and 'woke' quangos that they have spent the last 14 years reconstituting in their own image.

[dpedin]

But he blames it on labour. Government's get to choose how much they use quangos. They can choose to work harder themselves and do the job themselves, or they can choose to hand it over. No one forced them to hand the job over. This isn't some thing that tied their hands, it's something they freely chose.

It's like me ordering food instead of making it myself, then being upset at the restaurant for making it for me.

Govs have the power to create or shut down a quango, they do it all the time. Sure they have to make sure something is in place to implement their policies but that is entirely within the power of the Gov.

In terms of leftie Civil Servants 'controlling' what happens and gets done, in my experience it is usually the civil servants explaining in simple terms the implications - good and bad - of what the politician wants to do and the politician spitting the dummy out of the pram as a result! Rather than the politician explaining to the public why their madcap ideas are not being implemented ie they were never going to happen in the grown ups world, they tend to blame the 'stubborn/leftie civil service' or the bureaucratic Quango getting in their way. Our previous Gov did this all the time - throw out populist nonsense about what they were going to do, usually without telling HoC and driven by the right wing press, then get told by civil servants the significant legal, financial or geopolitical barriers to their madcap idea, take the huff, put on a pretend angry face and then blame the woke, avocado eating, leftie, enemies of the people, North London elite for denying the 'will of the people', which had never been tested as being the will of the people! Being the adults in the room can be a dangerous job!

So, what you mean to say, is that if a government had a qualified cabinet, with knowledge about their areas, they'd avoid more issues with the civil service pointing out that what they want to do is impossible/illegal? And if, just spitballing here, the attorney general was not a member of the governments party, but instead a highly qualified lawyer, they'd be less likely to run into these issues at implementation stage since he'd just have told them it was illegal straight away? And, just totally reaching, if said government had plans on reforming planning laws etc, and they appointed a solicitor general who was a barrister with an expertise in planning and local government, they might even be able to get stuff done efficiently?

So in that above scenario, perhaps Quangos wouldn't be the killers of all the governments great plans?

I couldn't possibly disagree with anything you say! Some would suggest that they might even 'test out' policy ideas with civil servants and quangos first and 'risk assess' them against what they are trying to achieve and if they were deliverable within the timescales they want?

[sturginho]

[_Os_]

In 2010 Cameron's Government promised a 'bonfire of the Quangos" and said they would get rid of and/or merge many of the existing quangos and replace the 'lefty' Blairite appointees at the heads of these organisations.

The Tories had 14 years to change the quangos and make their leaderships more right wing. In many cases they did so, and yet now, having lost the election they are once again complaining about the 'lefty' and 'woke' quangos that they have spent the last 14 years reconstituting in their own image.

One quango they shut down was the Audit Commission. Established by that famous leftie (checks notes) Margret Thatcher, to audit councils and other public bodies like the NHS. Its running cost was about £200m per year but it detected that much fraud per year. What repalced it was nothing. Today councils exist which haven't been audited in years, there's a declining amount of people even qualified to do the work (about 100) and councils are going under due to mass corruption (usually Tory run). There's places in England where council debt runs into the 10s of thousands for every man woman and child, whilst services and the quality of life in those places have nose dived. Austerity and more debt.

Truss ignored senior civil servants in the Treasury and Cabinet Office (dismissed as the woke blob). Ignored the IMF (dismissed as leftists). Excluded the Office for Budget Responsibility from her budget formation (evil lefty quango established by, checks notes, George Osborne). She then blew up the UK economy with a £40b debt funded tax cut. No one could stop her because she was the PM and in real terms that means she had nearly unrestrained presidential level power.

The idea the last decade and a half was a time when the Tories were constrained, is fucking laughable. They did exactly what they wanted. Which was mass corruption and overseeing the accelerated decline of the UK. I predicted on the here they would end up in a fight with the BoE a year before Truss arrived, it was very obvious where it was all going if you had seen similar movies before.

"The evil lefty woke blob was to blame". Fuck me.

[Lobby]

In 2010 Cameron's Government promised a 'bonfire of the Quangos" and said they would get rid of and/or merge many of the existing quangos and replace the 'lefty' Blairite appointees at the heads of these organisations.

The Tories had 14 years to change the quangos and make their leaderships more right wing. In many cases they did so, and yet now, having lost the election they are once again complaining about the 'lefty' and 'woke' quangos that they have spent the last 14 years reconstituting in their own image.

One quango they shut down was the Audit Commission. Established by that famous leftie (checks notes) Margret Thatcher, to audit councils and other public bodies like the NHS. Its running cost was about £200m per year but it detected that much fraud per year. What repalced it was nothing. Today councils exist which haven't been audited in years, there's a declining amount of people even qualified to do the work (about 100) and councils are going under due to mass corruption (usually Tory run). There's places in England where council debt runs into the 10s of thousands for every man woman and child, whilst services and the quality of life in those places have nose dived. Austerity and more debt.

Truss ignored senior civil servants in the Treasury and Cabinet Office (dismissed as the woke blob). Ignored the IMF (dismissed as leftists). Excluded the Office for Budget Responsibility from her budget formation (evil lefty quango established by, checks notes, George Osborne). She then blew up the UK economy with a £40b debt funded tax cut. No one could stop her because she was the PM and in real terms that means she had nearly unrestrained presidential level power.

The idea the last decade and a half was a time when the Tories were constrained, is fucking laughable. They did exactly what they wanted. Which was mass corruption and overseeing the accelerated decline of the UK. I predicted on the here they would end up in a fight with the BoE a year before Truss arrived, it was very obvious where it was all going if you had seen similar movies before.

"The evil lefty woke blob was to blame". Fuck me.

[Raggs]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

Now, I’m not saying I completely agree with the points he makes, as he is a zealot on some aspects, but if you want to understand the other side’s argument on this; you’d do worse than to watch this;

Right, so first one, quangos. I hope the posts above this one, put to bed the ridiculousness of trying to blame quangos for governmental failures.

Then the CCC, who's job it is, is to advise on the state of climate change and how well the UK is coming to meeting it's commitments, along with supplying advice on how to do it. I don't see how this stops the government from working? Perhaps it highlights how competent or incompetent they are, by reporting how well it's going, but they don't stop the government from doing anything.

English Nature, same deal, advisors. Not policy makers. Yes, it's hard to build on green belt land, as it should be, but the government set the planning laws. Yes, lots of land is protected due to protected spaces, you're going to struggle to convince me that it's wrong to protect these places. And looking into it, it's the conservatives that refused to use "greybelt" land, when Labour suggested it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2gj55vgxo so the conservatives really don't get a pass there.

Then he claims the rest of the issue is down to human rights and equality.

He seems to have an issue with how UK law works vs US. UK law is set on precedent, and has greater flexibility because it's not based on a fixed constitution. This is a great strength, and is why we don't end up with ludicrous situations of more guns than people, and managing to normalise school shootings etc.

Sorry, the guy sounds like he's verging on the edge of a new world order conspiracy theorists (I say verging, only because he hasn't said that exactly). Listening for a few minutes longer has me even more reluctant to use the word verging. He talks about the privileged middle class preventing the others making the changes they wish to make. The suggestion that the tory party, leaders/cabinet etc is not somehow part of the upper classes, is so completely out of this world it's laughable.

27 minutes now, and fuck listening to the rest. Get in the fecking sea if you think that anything he states is a valid and genuine reason for the conservatives managing to run the country into the ground.

Oh, and if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, here’s the lady herself



She starts talking about it from 10 minutes onwards.

I think she’s a cretin, but some of the stuff she talks about in terms of quangos does mirror what I see in my own line of work. There are technocrats in these institutions that carry a lot of power, and it’s all hidden, which makes me very uncomfortable.

Sorry, but I managed 30 seconds from 10 minutes in. More trying to blame quangos (which the government puts in place and chooses to use), and the civil service "activists", basically meaning people who aren't willing to break the law.

They were the fecking government, they have the power to change the law and remove the quangos. They choose how much power the quangos have, they literally give it to them, so the government doesn't have to do the work themselves.

This isn't some secret government running the country, these are institutes put in place by the government, to do the work for them. If they are being asked to break the law, just as in any other role, I expect them to refuse. It's just for most businesses, they cannot change the law, the government can.

Please, what power do quangos have, that is not given to them by the government, that prevents them from being closed by the government?

[Paddington Bear]

The critique is that the Tories were too scared/lazy to get rid of the Quangos, not that they were physically unable to. The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

[epwc]

The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

They were that thick?

[Tichtheid]

They were the fecking government, they have the power to change the law and remove the quangos. They choose how much power the quangos have, they literally give it to them, so the government doesn't have to do the work themselves.

This isn't some secret government running the country, these are institutes put in place by the government, to do the work for them. If they are being asked to break the law, just as in any other role, I expect them to refuse. It's just for most businesses, they cannot change the law, the government can.

Please, what power do quangos have, that is not given to them by the government, that prevents them from being closed by the government?

One of most bizarre things I saw last Friday was Steve Baker blaming the Cvili Service and all manner of institutions going back to the beginning of the 20th century as to reasons why the Tories lost - at which even George Osborne called him a crackpot.

The Tories have been in power for around 75 years in the last 100, Blair was the first sitting Labour PM to win an election* (bar Wilson's quick call for another election after a couple of years). Some Labour wins have lasted only a couple of years

The Right can try to shift blame all they like and some mugs will be conned by them as they always are by simplistic "reasoning", but they have been setting the tone in the UK for a long time.


*I mucked this up, when I've previously written this I meant in my voting lifetime, Atlee and Wilson both won elections as sitting PM, but the point on how many years they've held office stands.

[Raggs]

The critique is that the Tories were too scared/lazy to get rid of the Quangos, not that they were physically unable to. The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

So they were shit in government. That's a fair critique and one that caused them to lose. A government that was willing to have such high level corruption wasn't scared btw.

[fishfoodie]

The critique is that the Tories were too scared/lazy to get rid of the Quangos, not that they were physically unable to. The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

Quangos have two purposes, the Official, & the unofficial.

The Official one is to depoliticise some activities, so that these functions can be consistent beyond a single Parliament; the unofficial one is to be a firewall between the Politicians & the public for unpopular decisions.

You only have to look at the manipulation of the BBC over the last 10 years to see that a Government is easily able to manipulate a supposedly independent body if it wants to. The various Regulators who all failed dismally to protect the Public were all appointed by the Tories, & their Governance was directed by Government policy, but in their case their failure was so obvious it became impossible for the public to miss massive price rises for Energy, & proposed ones for Water, from Companies who were running record profits.

[Biffer]

The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

They were that thick?

Have you heard Liz Truss speak?

[Random1]

I agree that the crucial part of the equation that both are missing, is that a competent government would have solved this issue if they felt it was a stopping them.

I do think there’s some truth that the quangos hold a too much power, as much of the implementation of things like the equalities act has been done by HR departments across the 500 odd quangos, which has resulted in the left feeling like there’s no such thing as the culture war, and the right seeing it all over the place.

I know you guys will disagree with that, but I hope it gives a little insight into why reform is doing ok at the moment, other than just saying 15% of the populace are racist dullards.

[Raggs]

I agree that the crucial part of the equation that both are missing, is that a competent government would have solved this issue if they felt it was a stopping them.

I do think there’s some truth that the quangos hold a too much power, as much of the implementation of things like the equalities act has been done by HR departments across the 500 odd quangos, which has resulted in the left feeling like there’s no such thing as the culture war, and the right seeing it all over the place.

I know you guys will disagree with that, but I hope it gives a little insight into why reform is doing ok at the moment, other than just saying 15% of the populace are racist dullards.

If quangos hold too much power, it's only because the current government, labour or conservative, give it to them. Someone has to implement the policies, and whoever is implementing them would be claimed to have the power.

[Paddington Bear]

The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

They were that thick?

Have you heard Liz Truss speak?

Pretty much. There’s some very funny clips of MPs discussing policy and saying ‘we can’t do x, it’s against the law’, forgetting that they could have changed the law! Bizarre stuff, can’t really explain it

[petej]

I agree that the crucial part of the equation that both are missing, is that a competent government would have solved this issue if they felt it was a stopping them.

I do think there’s some truth that the quangos hold a too much power, as much of the implementation of things like the equalities act has been done by HR departments across the 500 odd quangos, which has resulted in the left feeling like there’s no such thing as the culture war, and the right seeing it all over the place.

I know you guys will disagree with that, but I hope it gives a little insight into why reform is doing ok at the moment, other than just saying 15% of the populace are racist dullards.

The example of HR departments is a funny one. The equalities act is there to reduce discrimination. HR departments are mostly there to ensure that a company can be as shitty as possible to employees without breaching various rules and laws including the equalities act. They are also present so that senior management avoid having to directly be unpleasant to people.

[Paddington Bear]

The critique is that the Tories were too scared/lazy to get rid of the Quangos, not that they were physically unable to. The Tories never understood that governing under Blairite structures was a choice they made for themselves.

Quangos have two purposes, the Official, & the unofficial.

The Official one is to depoliticise some activities, so that these functions can be consistent beyond a single Parliament; the unofficial one is to be a firewall between the Politicians & the public for unpopular decisions.

You only have to look at the manipulation of the BBC over the last 10 years to see that a Government is easily able to manipulate a supposedly independent body if it wants to. The various Regulators who all failed dismally to protect the Public were all appointed by the Tories, & their Governance was directed by Government policy, but in their case their failure was so obvious it became impossible for the public to miss massive price rises for Energy, & proposed ones for Water, from Companies who were running record profits.

Whilst quangos claim to depoliticise, they do nothing of the sort. They enforce (or attempt to) the political settlement from the time they were set up. I.e. the OBR’s brief is essentially to enforce tight fiscal discipline as it was set up by George Osborne, that is a political position.

In my fantasy government, I would rip up a large number of Blair era reforms. That’s a political decision, but so is maintaining them! The Tories never grasped the nettle of this, and it is a factor in their failure.