Cuts to quangos are political, not financial

The full list of cuts to quangos reveals that it isn't quite the bonfire we were promised.

The full details of the Coalition's "bonfire of the quangos" have now filtered into the public domain (not helped by the fact that the Cabinet Office website has been down since early this morning).

It's a large and unwieldy set of data, but a few things immediately jump out: the Royal Mail is to be "transferred to the private sector over time"; BBC World Service survives to delight its global audience for a little longer (do read the NS's Antonia Quirke on the subject, by the way); and the UK Film Council is indeed to be scrapped.

First, the stats. The future of 901 separate quangos have been reviewed. 192 will be scrapped outright, with at least another hundred merged. The fate of a further 40, including the Student Loans Company, the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the Independent Safeguarding Authority, is still to be determined.

The impression that first Cameron, and now the Coalition, have tried to give through these reforms is of a radical slashing of public inefficiency. However, the really striking thing to me about this document is how many of these bodies will survive in one way or another. Andrew Sparrow, on his Guardian liveblog, has crunched some of the numbers, and it transpires that 380 quangos will survive intact, with a further 118 merged to become 57 bodies. Another 171 will be "substantially reformed", meaning that should the full recommendations of this review be implemented, at least two-thirds of the quangos reviewed will persist in some form or other.

Cabinet Office minister Frances Maude has been on the air today, emphasising how this cull will improve government accountability, although, crucially, he was unable to confirm how much money the reforms will save.

One worrying trend that emerges from this list is that of formerly independent bodies being absorbed into government departments. The Main Honours Advisory Committee moves inside the Cabinet Office, as does the policy responsibilities of the Big Lottery Fund. A host of tribunal services will now fall under the remit of the Ministry of Justice, and a number of health-related advisory committees will be consolidated into "Department of Health/Public Service committees of experts".

As I've argued previously, axing these quangos is less about delivering vast savings than about political positioning. Talk of "bonfires" is all very well, but the document itself indicates that few of these changes will happen immediately. And in many cases, the functions of these bodies cannot be completely erased and will have to be distributed elsewhere -- a remarkable number of entries use phrases like "will continue as a charity with the potential to become a community interest company" -- an operation that will take time, money, and manpower to achieve.

Liam Byrne has just told the House of Commons that at least two-thirds of these reforms were already planned under Labour. Talk of increasing government accountability or "rolling back bureaucracy" through these reforms is just presentation. The deeper objective for the Coalition is undoubtedly to transfer greater power to central and local goverment, and to exploit the public dislike of bureaucracy by appearing to slash through reams of red tape, no doubt as part of the spin strategy in advance of the spending review next week.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Getty.
Show Hide image

19 things wrong with Daniel Hannan’s tweet about the women’s march

The crackpot and these women.

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

State of this:

I mean honestly, where do you even begin? Even by Daniel’s rarefied standards of idiocy, this is a stonker. How is it stupid? Let me count the ways.

1. “Our female head of government” implies the existence of “their female head of government”. Which is odd, because the tweet is clearly aimed at Hillary Clinton, who isn’t anybody’s head of government.

Way to kick someone when they’re down, Dan. What next? “So pleased that my daughter received a wide selection of Christmas presents, unlike those of certain families”?

2. I dunno, I’m no expert, but it’s just possible that there are reasons why so few women make it to the top of politics which don’t have anything to do with how marvellous Britain is.

3. Hillary Clinton was not “the last guy’s wife”. You can tell this, because she was not married to Barack Obama, whose wife is called Michelle. (Honestly, Daniel, I’m surprised you haven’t spotted the memes.)

4. She wasn’t married to the guy before him, come to that. Her husband stopped being president 16 years ago, since when she’s been elected to the Senate twice and served four years as Secretary of State.

5. I’m sure Hillary would love to have been able to run for president without reference to her husband – for the first few years of her marriage, indeed, she continued to call herself Hillary Rodham. But in 1980 Republican Frank White defeated Bill Clinton’s campaign to be re-elected as govenor of Arkansas, in part by mercilessly attacking the fact his wife still used her maiden name.

In the three decades since, Hillary has moved from Hillary Rodham, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Hillary Clinton. You can see this as a cynical response to conservative pressure, if you so wish – but let’s not pretend there was no pressure to subsume her political identity into that of her husband, eh? And let’s not forget that it came from your side of the fence, eh, Dan?

6. Also, let’s not forget that the woman you’re subtweeting is a hugely intelligent former senator and secretary of state, who Barack Obama described as the most qualified person ever to run for president. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be so patronising as to imply that the only qualification she had was her husband, now, would you?

7. I’d love to know what qualifications Dan thinks are sufficient to become US president, and whether he believes a real estate mogul with an inherited fortune and a reality TV show has them.

8. Hillary Clinton got nearly 3m more votes than Donald Trump, by the way.

9. More votes than any white man who has ever run for president, in fact.

10. Certainly a lot more votes than Theresa May, who has never faced a general election as prime minister and became leader of the government by default after the only other candidate left in the race dropped out. Under the rules of British politics this is as legitimate a way of becoming PM as any, of course, I’m just not sure how winning a Tory leadership contest by default means she “ran in her own right” in a way that Hillary Clinton did not.

11. Incidentally, here’s a video of Daniel Hannan demanding Gordon Brown call an early election in 2009 on the grounds that “parliament has lost the moral mandate to carry on”.

So perhaps expecting him to understand how the British constitution works is expecting too much.

12. Why the hell is Hannan sniping at Hillary Clinton, who is not US president, when the man who is the new US president has, in three days, come out against press freedom, basic mathematics and objective reality? Sorry, I’m not moving past that.

13. Notice the way the tweet says that our “head of government” got there on merit. That’s because our “head of state” got the job because her great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother happened to be a protestant in 1701 and her uncle wanted to marry a divorcee – all of which makes it a bit difficult to say that our head of government “ran in her own right”.  But hey, whatever makes you happy.

14. Is Daniel calling the US a banana republic? I mean, it’s a position I have some sympathy with in this particular week, but it’s an odd fit with the way he gets all hot and bothered whenever someone starts talking about the English-speaking peoples.

15. Incidentally, he stole this tweet from his 14-year-old daughter:

16. Who talks, oddly, like a 45-year-old man.

17. And didn’t even credit her! It’s exactly this sort of thing which stops women making it to the top rank of politics, Daniel.

18. He tweeted that at 6.40am the day after the march. Like, he spent the whole of Saturday trying to come up with a zinger, and then eventually woke up early on the Sunday unable to resist stealing a line from his teenage daughter. One of the great orators of our age, ladies and gentlemen.

19. He thinks he can tweet this stuff without people pointing and laughing at him.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. He is on Twitter, almost continously, as @JonnElledge.