800 quangos cost taxpayer €13 billion - Indo



D

Deleted member 17573

Every single last quango should be abolished immediately. They are not necessary, and we have no money anyway! The only way we can keep these useless government agencies alive is by increasing the tax burden on the already a$$-hammered private sector taxpayers! Let's be sensible here - the country has to CUT unnecessary expenditure. Any idiot with a semblance of a brain can understand that.
I´m in no way opposed to the abolition of Quangos - but what do posters mean by this? Is it fair to assume that they are talking about getting rid of the Boards of these quangos while retaining the permanent staff to continue to perform their functions? If this is the case the potential saving is actually quite small. I don´t know with any degree of certainty how many such organisations we have but I recall a figure of 170. Let´s assume a board of 10 people per Quango which gives us a figure of 1700 - let´s say a round 2000. If each of these are on a fee of say 10k per annum, then the total saving would be about 20 million, not 13 billion. I know these are only very rough guesstimates but I think they suffice to knock on the head any nonsense about a potential saving of 13 billion.
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,360
No Sailor, as usual you don't have a clue. Most of these quangos actually don't fulfil any useful purpose. I'm sure somewhere in the mass of quangos there might be one or two bodies that actually do something useful, but desperate times, etc.

Shut them all down, one month's notice, compulsory layoffs, statutory redundancy only.

We can pick up the pieces of the very very few that did something useful later, and make sure the duties are taken up by staff in the relevant department. Staff who will have just had a salutory lesson from the bonfire of the quangos that sitting around on yer hole all day at taxpayers expense is no longer an option.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,096
I´m in no way opposed to the abolition of Quangos - but what do posters mean by this? Is it fair to assume that they are talking about getting rid of the Boards of these quangos while retaining the permanent staff to continue to perform their functions?
No, if the quango serves no useful purpose, the staff must go too. The task for an incoming govt. will be to protect the useful state organisations from the cuts which will be demanded by whoever provides the funds.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

No Sailor, as usual you don't have a clue. Most of these quangos actually don't fulfil any useful purpose. I'm sure somewhere in the mass of quangos there might be one or two bodies that actually do something useful, but desperate times, etc.

Shut them all down, one month's notice, compulsory layoffs, statutory redundancy only.

We can pick up the pieces of the very very few that did something useful later, and make sure the duties are taken up by staff in the relevant department. Staff who will have just had a salutory lesson from the bonfire of the quangos that sitting around on yer hole all day at taxpayers expense is no longer an option.
Could you provide a list of, say, 10 Quangos that you would abolish in this manner.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

No, if the quango serves no useful purpose, the staff must go too. The task for an incoming govt. will be to protect the useful state organisations from the cuts which will be demanded by whoever provides the funds.
I agree - but would you not also agree that, without considering each individual quango on its merits, it´s a bit silly to be claiming a potential saving of 13 billion?
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,360
Could you provide a list of, say, 10 Quangos that you would abolish in this manner.
:roll:

What is it with your complete constant brain failure, special boy?

I said shut them all down. It's the only way to be sure. Which bit of that escaped your profoundly limited comprehension, exactly?

We'll quickly find out the ones that do something useful, I have no doubt - and it's the perfect opportunity to merge those activities back into the department, properly re-organised and reformed. Nothing works properly in this country anyway so I doubt anyone will be too inconvenienced by a few weeks disruption in service.

Feel free to now dribble on yapping about some irrelevant utter bullcrap and make up a few lies about what I am saying here, like you usually do, you cancerous pollutant.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,633
It was yes but in general PC is bad. This is an exception.
Why? Because it could be taken to be referring to you personally?

So what is your position on PC talk then? That all minorities are fair game, except the disabled or homosexuals?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,096
I agree - but would you not also agree that, without considering each individual quango on its merits, it´s a bit silly to be claiming a potential saving of 13 billion?
Potential is a great word but I don't believe we should run a state without a public service. Unfortunately there are a lot of schemes which benefit those who provide the services rather than those who receive them - the whole human rights/legal aid/advice boards are a case in point.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
No Sailor, as usual you don't have a clue. Most of these quangos actually don't fulfil any useful purpose. I'm sure somewhere in the mass of quangos there might be one or two bodies that actually do something useful, but desperate times, etc.

Shut them all down, one month's notice, compulsory layoffs, statutory redundancy only.

We can pick up the pieces of the very very few that did something useful later, and make sure the duties are taken up by staff in the relevant department. Staff who will have just had a salutory lesson from the bonfire of the quangos that sitting around on yer hole all day at taxpayers expense is no longer an option.
Absolutely.

No point in setting up another Quango to determine which Quangoes are needed, just abolish all Quangoes set up in the last 10 years.

If any had any reason to exist in the first place they will be so badly missed that it will be obvious. We can then look at reforming them. My guess is that there will not be too many.

All of these Quango jobs are the reason for the bloated Public Service. They are the reason for the shortage of nurses, gardai and essential staff.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
33,096

supermonkey

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
614
It was yes but in general PC is bad. This is an exception.
Because it affects you. Ha Ha Ha. Like your ultra PC attitude to the rights of the happy and carefree because you are a homosexual!

Jesus wept what a hypocrite.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

:roll:

What is it with your complete constant brain failure, special boy?

I said shut them all down. It's the only way to be sure. Which bit of that escaped your profoundly limited comprehension, exactly?

We'll quickly find out the ones that do something useful, I have no doubt - and it's the perfect opportunity to merge those activities back into the department, properly re-organised and reformed. Nothing works properly in this country anyway so I doubt anyone will be too inconvenienced by a few weeks disruption in service.

Feel free to now dribble on yapping about some irrelevant utter bullcrap and make up a few lies about what I am saying here, like you usually do, you cancerous pollutant.
This is a bit like your waffle on the bailout when you told us it wouldn´t work - even though you know nothing about it - worse, in fact, if I were to develop on the subject but I´ll let it go at that. In order to either set up or close down organisations, or parts of organisations, best practice would be to examine the need for such an organisation. A hysterical cry to "shut them all down" is not best practice - it´s just plain ideological nonsense that is utterly unrelated to any consideration of the functioning of government and its various agencies.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
This is a bit like your waffle on the bailout when you told us it wouldn´t work - even though you know nothing about it - worse, in fact, if I were to develop on the subject but I´ll let it go at that. In order to either set up or close down organisations, or parts of organisations, best practice would be to examine the need for such an organisation. A hysterical cry to "shut them all down" is not best practice - it´s just plain ideological nonsense that is utterly unrelated to any consideration of the functioning of government and its various agencies.
No. It is a common sense approach. Best practice would have involved not setting up agencies to deal with tasks that were the role of the relevent Dept in the first place.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

No. It is a common sense approach. Best practice would have involved not setting up agencies to deal with tasks that were the role of the relevent Dept in the first place.
Now you´re on the Sidey line of "shut em all down" - that´s no way to conduct business whether it be private or public sector. It´s just wild hysteria - easy but unblessed by any coherent thought.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
Now you´re on the Sidey line of "shut em all down" - that´s no way to conduct business whether it be private or public sector. It´s just wild hysteria - easy but unblessed by any coherent thought.
No, as I said it is common sense. The very fact that they did not always exist means that we can manage without them.

You can look into the value of them after 6 months of seeing how you cope without them.

If there is a real need for any of them, it will be obvious.

We have a 15 billion gap to close. We have 13 billion worth of Quangoes. My guess is that 2 thirds of that 15 billion could be saved in Quango closure alone, but even if it was only half that amount we could meet the 3% by 2014 figure without working up a sweat.

Let me put it this way, it is the first thing the IMF would do.
 

PAD1OH

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,732
:roll:

What is it with your complete constant brain failure, special boy?

I said shut them all down. It's the only way to be sure. Which bit of that escaped your profoundly limited comprehension, exactly?

We'll quickly find out the ones that do something useful, I have no doubt - and it's the perfect opportunity to merge those activities back into the department, properly re-organised and reformed. Nothing works properly in this country anyway so I doubt anyone will be too inconvenienced by a few weeks disruption in service.

Feel free to now dribble on yapping about some irrelevant utter bullcrap and make up a few lies about what I am saying here, like you usually do, you cancerous pollutant.

is your real name Walter Peck?
 

clonycavanman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
656
What could go?

Home - Irish Council for International Students (ICOS) ; a quango for students from abroad
[Refugee Documentation Centre] library service (sic); they would like your suggestions for 'materials to buy', funded by legal aid board
Citizensinformation.ie ; gets at least 30 million per year from Department of Social and Family Affairs
Free Legal Advice Centres ; purport to be a charity, are funded by Dublin City Council, Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, and Department of Community and Gaeltacht

These are luxury services that a mismanaged country, with a budget deficit estimated at 32% of GDP , cannot afford.

Money Advice and Budgeting Service should be retained and put in charge of the Department of Finance (who should be sacked for what they have presided over). Let's hope the MABS has some down to earth money-stretching tips to give to other Govt Departments.

Charitable status should be removed from organisations whose chief purpose is political campaigning.

There's a few million saved.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top