As a consequence of winding down these quangos (without creating new ones) politiciancs will have to accept the consequence of higher unemployement but in the long run it will be better for the economy as a whole.

I asked about the National School of Government because I had some experience of it when it was the Civil Service College and felt it was doing necessary things that weren’t available off-the-shelf from other providers of training and education. Then it was mainly aimed at the “fast stream” training programme for graduate entrants and specific training for the Senior Civil Service. Other large employers both in the public and the private sector have specialised in house training operations for such groups and not just in the UK – heard of the ENA? As far as mainstream Civil Service training is concerned , much is outsourced and most training of junior staff is provided/contracted by individual departments. My memory is that the Civil Service College made extensive use of external expertise.

The important questions, regarding any government function, are (i) whether the function is needed, then (ii) whether it can best be provided by a specialised, in house provision and then (iii) whether that should be centralised or distributed.
Decisions are not always made sensibly like this but certainly from the 1970s onwards this sort of analysis was increasingly part of the mechanisms underlying any new initiative or major restructuring, with since 1979, strong presumptions in favour of outsourcing, driven by the Treasury.

By the way, in my original post something got deleted in the last para – but I think the sense struggled through – and regarding the National School of Government, I find that it is not an executive agency but a non-departmental public body. The old College had been an agency.

Also, do we need a school to teach people to be a “civil servant”, or alternatively do we need schools to teach people do the various things that civil servants are required to do, which varies from department to department.

As things stand at the moment, with all the imbalances in the market and the unwillingness of the consumer to pay more money for food, the overnight abolition of CAP would mean that UK and European food production would drop dramatically. And the first whingers in the lengthening food queues would be those who think that farmers have it easy by dipping into the taxpayers’ pockets.

In the meantime, we need more government research not less. I am not asking for more money to be spent by the taxpayer, only that the same budget (or a slightly smaller one)could be spent to so much better effect.

Incidentally, the basic laws of dimishing returns dictates that agricultural technology demands more and more money to be sunk into acheiving fewer returns in terms of production. The eigteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century strides forward were a lot easier to attain than much smaller advances now.

THE MUSIC AND DANCE SCHEME ADVISORY GROUP

Between 1999 and 2000 the Department undertook a wide-ranging review of the scheme with the help of consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers. One of the recommendations in their Final Report was to set up an Advisory Group to oversee the future operation and development of the MDS.

The Group was established by Estelle Morris, then Minister of State, in September 2000. Roger Lewis, then Managing Director and Programme Controller at Classic fM was appointed Chairman, with 14 other members, drawing on people with experience and knowledge of the music and dance worlds, the education and training of young musicians and dancers, and from business and the performing arts. The Group was extended in 2001 and 2002, and re-constituted in 2004 to include more representation from the maintained performing arts sector and from the wider dance sector. Tony Hall, Chief Executive at the Royal Opera House, succeeded Roger Lewis as Chairman in 2004.

The Group has now completed its work and was wound up in the Summer 2007. Its last published report can be downloaded from this page (see below).

Advisory Group’s Fifth Report 2004/05

The great improvements in food variety and quality since, say, 1980 has been driven by market competition not bureaucratic ‘standards’. Even in 1980 food safety was scarcely a problem at all in this country.

few more there

why does the consumer have to pay for the producer’s research?

in the last century we have invented engines which made horses and oxen redundant, so farmers could use 100% of their land to grow food instead of 60%. we invented weedkillers which made the land produce 95% useful crop instead of 50% useful crop. we developed bug/drought/flood resistant strains which took the risk out of planting all at the same time. we developed higher yield varieties. soon we can sow genetically modified crops which will produce reliable food with a bar code on every stalk…

by any analysis, agricultural land has tripled in productivity, thanks to external efforts which were not made by the farmers.

so why is farming in such dire straits that it needs one third of the entire EU budget spent supporting it?

could it be anything to do with the farmers?

let them get together and fund their own research. enough pulling on the teat of the taxpayer, already.