The Hunting of the QANGO

QANGOs are born of Mob Rule and they are dying by it, too.

Here, I want to put some thoughts out on trying to rationalise the process of reducing QANGOs, defining if they should exist, should mutate, and to offer an alternative to the divisiveness involved in deciding where the axe falls or the money flows. Note this is put in the context of where we are now, not where we want to be. It is, rather, early stepping stones towards a destination, which is a much smaller State that is still shrinking.

If a body does not need to be a monopoly e.g. it does not have statutory powers, or is not a natural monopoly, then the justification to be a QANGO reduces.

If the body provides oversight at arms length to the government, then it might be worth first reconsidering if the Government should be responsible for that area at all, if they cannot be trusted with a monopoly or powers. Remove the powers, remove the need for a QANGO to oversee said powers.

If something is a natural monopoly, then, potentially, it might be better as a municipal activity in the interim so at least there is oversight and accountability. If it must be arms length, then it should have electable leaders.

An entity like The School Food Trust does not need to be a monopoly. Why does it "need" to be accountable outside of the fact that it gains State funding? It does not have statutory powers. There is no "need" for it to exist, but it is a WIBNI - "wouldn't it be nice if...", and only then subjectively. It is a want, not a must.

In times of hardship, wants are not the focus, musts are. Anyone who thinks we should borrow massive amounts of money year on year to cover running costs - a.k.a. Brownian "investment" - is a stranger to reason.

If you ask everyone to decide, who is a taxpayer and paying for it, how they would divide up their tax funding for a range of wants, you might find that most people are pretty level headed.

After all, those in Local Government are people, ordinary people, no?

The wisdom of crowds is not the same as mob rule. What we have now in "democracy" is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority passing through a cypher that is Local and National "authorities". It potentially disenfranchises 60%+ of the population.

Of course, some will say that people are too busy to read up and understand the good works that many QANGOs and other bodies funded by the State provide. Well, the answer may well be very simple. Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and others can all produce a 'first draft' of their own version of a prioritised list and funding proportions therein, and make it freely available. Then, if you are too busy but trust a particular party, you can just agree with them, adopt their ratios and priorities and that is sorted. If you have a little time, you can grab the nearest set and opt out of some and add your own beneficiaries of your own tax revenue stream from the full list.

For QANGOs to get my money I want to see salaries and bios. I want to see results[1].

This way it will not be "Tory Cuts" or "Labour Waste", but people will decide where the tax revenues allocated to QANGOs will actually go in proportion and in order of preference. When the money runs out, those least preferred by someone will not get the tax income from that person, but if that same organisation is higher up the scale for another, it still gets the revenue from that second person.

This is real localism - putting the power back to the individual.

Will any of the Big Three countenance that? I doubt it, not even - and I would say especially not - the Lib Dems. I suspect that Socialists would prefer this scheme to letting the Tories decide for all. Of course, they might not want to keep such localism once they regain the levers, but then that would distinguish the genuine voluntary mutualist-leaning Socialists from the Authoritarian-Totalitarians, no?

Putting in such a mechanism - and I admit it might benefit from some refinement - will remove the divisiveness from the whole process. Lobbying government will not be good enough. It allows those who are too busy to at least get their approximate preferences, and those who want to get stuck in to fine tune. What it does NOT do is allow one Party after another to dictate to the majority who did not want them in that position.

[1] I would be happier to see money go to one or two non QANGOs over some QANGOs - I might well prefer Southall Black Sisters or MIND to get some money instead of The School Food Trust - but extending beyond direct State funding of QANGOs might be too complex for the first iteration of this concept, but should not be left unresolved for too long.