English Heritage approves uPVC? Surely not!

[FamilyWiggs]

What will happen when English Heritage ceases to exist (it is on the ConDem list of quangos to go)?

Mindful of the comment elsewhere about knowing the cost and not the value :wink: , in 2007 EH employed 1937 people and cost the taxpayer £141m (up 10% on the previous year).

In total there are some 1200 quangos spending £60bn of taxpayers money and employing almost 3/4m of a million people. There has to be waste and duplication amongst them as well as some very vital functions. If the list of those to be "burned" in the bonfire of the quangos is 180 or so, then they are not being subject to the same proportionate reductions of circa 25% across most of the rest of the public sector that is needed to balance the books.

Data: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tm4Dxoo0QtDrEOEC1FAJuUg#gid=0

Edit: The leaked list of those being abolished, rather than merged, or privatised covers 22,400 of the 700,000 employees and spent some 4bn. More of small boy scout fire than a bonfire!

Data: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhsZb7eJoMM5dG8wMUdtQ0NNcFhfckNYTERXcnVwSmc&hl=en#gid=0

I'll be quiet now!

 

[Flyfisher]

What will happen when English Heritage ceases to exist (it is on the ConDem list of quangos to go)?

I imagine the process is to make a big long list and then let the debates rage before making the final decisions, if any.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/sep/24/coalition-bonfire-of-quangos

One of my favourite quotes is:
"Leaders are often called on to make decisions without adequate information.
As a result, they may put off deciding to do anything at all.
That's a big mistake. Decisions themselves elicit new information.
The best policy is to decide, monitor the results, and change course if necessary".
( Norman Schwarzkopf)


Personally, I'd be surprised if this government does any real harm to English heritage, in the broadest sense of the term, though some reorganisation might be done for political effect (which would likely save little or no money, but that's PR for your!).

But I'm sure there are some that could go, be merged, or hived off. I was very surprised to see the Forestry Commission on the list as I thought it had been privatised years ago. Is forestry really not capable of commercial operation?

The other amusing (I thought) recent row was the parade of luvvies bemoaning the threatened loss of the UK Fim Council and defending it on the basis that for every pound invested the treasury gets back five. Surely that sort of commercial success means the UK film industry should be self-supporting?

 

[biffvernon]

I was very surprised to see the Forestry Commission on the list as I thought it had been privatised years ago. Is forestry really not capable of commercial operation?

Commercial operation is only a part of the Forestry Commission's work. Much of their work is of great importance to our environment and would not be a commercially viable enterprise. Take a look round their website: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/

 

[Penners]

Hear, hear!

 

[Penners]

I imagine the process is to make a big long list and then let the debates rage before making the final decisions, if any.

I suspect that the process also involves painting as bleak a picture of prospective cuts as possible. Then, when the final announcements are made on October 20th (?), the fact that they're not quite as bad as we expected will soften the blow.