Keir Starmer's war on quangos is doomed to fail unless he is bolder
A few years ago I was taken on a tour of the innards of the Palace of Westminster, a place where I had worked for almost 20 years but had never seen its dark underside. In the bowels of Charles Barry's neo-Gothic masterpiece is a bewildering nexus of pipes, wires, cables and conduits which coil their way for miles beneath, above and around the 28-acre site.
Over the years the Palace has developed organically, with bits bolted on as and when they have been required: gas pipes, electricity wires, phone lines, TV cables, Wi-Fi and the rest. Many disappear into a wall and emerge no one knows where. Each year the bill for essential maintenance runs into many millions of pounds, but it is all patching-up and bodging. The dangers are evident, especially in a building that replaced one that burned to the ground in 1834, but MPs have been unable to agree on what to do about repairing it.
As a metaphor for the way we are governed it could hardly be bettered. The machinery of Whitehall makes a Heath-Robinson device look positively straightforward. Starry-eyed ministers, buoyed by an election victory, arrive in their departments eager to shine and implement their pet projects only to find that when they pull a lever there is nothing on the other end. The power they thought they possessed had been proxied out to an arm's length, non-departmental body, colloquially known as a quango.
Back in the day their number could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The BBC was one of the first and biggest. But in the 1970s and 1980s they grew like Topsy, hundreds of them often replicating decision-making being undertaken elsewhere.
Political hostility to quangos goes back decades. In 1995 the then shadow chancellor Gordon Brown said: 'The biggest question… is why our constitution is over-centralised, over-secretive and over-bureaucratic and why there is not more openness and accountability. The real alternative is a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy.'
Labour's 1997 election manifesto attacked the Conservatives for supporting 'unaccountable quangos'. Tony Blair even promised to dump them in the 'dustbin of history'. But by the time Labour left office in 2010 there were still hundreds of them. Perversely, given Brown's strictures, they included one of the most powerful – the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England which assumed control over interest rates from the Chancellor.
The Coalition decided that a 'bonfire of the quangos' was needed and earmarked around 300 advisory bodies, consumer watchdogs and public service organisations for the torch. Out went the Audit Commission, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and Cycling England. Others, like the Zoos Forum, the Herbal Medicines Advisory Committee and the Air Quality Expert Group, were replaced by 'committees of experts'. Dozens were merged.
Did it make any difference? Are we better or more cheaply governed? Apparently not because Sir Keir Starmer now wants another conflagration as part of his somewhat nebulous plan to 'rewire the state'. Pat McFadden, who runs the Cabinet Office responsible for Whitehall, has asked every department to justify the existence of quangos within their bailiwick. Those that cannot be sufficiently justified will be closed, merged or have powers brought back into the department.
As a signal of intent, McFadden is drafting legislation that could shut down a swathe of quangos using a single Act of Parliament rather than requiring individual laws to abolish each one. The Government got off to a good start by closing down the mother and father of them all, NHS England. But the big, so far unanswered, question is what is to replace its functions and will it be an improvement or just as wasteful and unresponsive?
Look at what happened when Public Health England was abolished during the pandemic. It was replaced by a new body, the UK Health Security Agency, which has seamlessly adopted the 'nanny state' mantle of its predecessor. We can expect this to expand further, like the nation's waistlines, as Wes Streeting unveils his NHS reforms centred mostly on prevention.
But even as McFadden calls on departments to identify quangos for the chop, the Government is creating more of them, around 20 since July. They include Great British Energy, a Government-owned retail company that seeks to invest in, manage and operate clean energy projects alongside private sector firms.
Then there is the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. Great British Railways will soon be up and running alongside a Passenger Standards Authority. Then we have Skills England, a Regulatory Innovation Office, a Fair Work Agency, a Border Security Command, a National Centre for Policing and an Independent Football Regulator. There are others, and even more are in the pipeline.
When Sir Keir talks about 'rewiring the state' it is not because he wants it to be smaller or cheaper to run. It is to make it responsive to his desire for 'active government', an old Wilsonian Labour belief in the paternalistic nature of the state. We are not going to be governed less – quite the opposite – just in a different way.
But even then Sir Keir will still have his hands tied. The quangos that have the most power are those that effectively determine core economic policies – the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Monetary Policy Committee and the Climate Change Committee. In one of its first acts Labour gave the OBR more powers, not fewer, putting the Chancellor in a budgetary straitjacket from which she cannot escape.
If Sir Keir really wants to reform Whitehall and save money then he could do worse than scrap a few departments in their entirety. What is the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology for if there is an array of quangos doing the same job? Why do we need a Department for Culture, Media and Sport which works with 42 agencies and public bodies?
Sir Keir may be determined to 'rewire government' but without a clearer, bolder idea of how to do it he will end up in just as big a tangle as still exists under the Palace of Westminster.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dem senator's viral outburst at DHS presser triggers mixed reactions from lawmakers: 'Disgusting situation'
House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle gave strong reactions shortly after Sen. Alex Padilla's, D-Calif., viral outburst that got him thrown out of a Department of Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles on Thursday. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and Jim Jordan of Ohio spoke to Fox News Digital after Padilla was escorted out of the hearing. "That was crazy," Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said. "It's a disgusting situation," Jeffries said. Senate Shaken: Bipartisan Worry Erupts After Incident Involving California Democrat Many Democrats condemned how the Secret Service handcuffed and removed Padilla from the room during the event, with some even calling on Noem to resign. Padilla and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem ended up holding a meeting afterward, which Padilla's office described as "civil," and Noem described as "cordial" despite the strong disagreements between the two. Read On The Fox News App Luna, a Florida Republican, said the viral incident speaks to a larger optics issue with men in the Democratic Party. "I think optics are pretty bad for Democrat men as a whole," Luna said. "I mean, he aggressively was approaching her. Obviously, security saw that as a threat. I know after the fact, she actually was gracious enough after he pulled that to talk with him for a little bit and then exchange numbers. But the fact is that he's a sitting senator, and he's acting like a weirdo. I don't know how else to describe it, other than you should not act like that, period, and especially not show aggression like that towards women," she continued. Conservatives Erupt After Dem Senator's 'Temper Tantrum' Sends Dhs Presser Off The Rails "I think he was trying to get clickbait, but I don't know about how you were raised, but I was raised that you don't throw temper tantrums, and you certainly don't approach women like that," she continued. Click Here For More Immigration Coverage Jordan, an Ohio Republican, wondered why Padilla was in Los Angeles instead of Washington, D.C., as the Senate was in session on Thursday. "Well, I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is, why isn't he here voting? I – just like, the Senate's in session. I just did a press conference with senators," he said. "I know they're in session, so why is he here doing that? And then. Second, why not just wait and do your own press conference? Like, the press is there. The cameras are microphones are there. If you wait till Secretary Noem is done, and then you tell them you want to say a few things, you cover him, everyone will cover you, journalists, everyone cover him. So, to me, those are the two takeaways. Why not just do it the common-sense way instead of going in and making a scene," the Republican added. Padilla Hopes People Feel 'Outrage' Over His Forcible Removal And Detainment The FBI said that he was let go after he had properly identified himself, as he was not wearing his security pin when he interrupted Noem while trying to ask a question during her remarks. Padilla did state his name and was wearing a shirt that said the U.S. Senate on it. "If this is how this administration responds to a Senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, and to day laborers throughout California and throughout the country. We will hold this administration accountable," he said after the incident. Meanwhile, DHS slammed it as "disrespectful political theater." The press conference was focused on anti-ICE civil unrest in Los Angeles as federal immigration authorities continue arrests of illegal immigrants in the article source: Dem senator's viral outburst at DHS presser triggers mixed reactions from lawmakers: 'Disgusting situation'
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour's insane economic policies are taking us back to the dark 1970s
We have been here before. The crisis that the country faces may be catastrophic but it is not unprecedented. Anyone old enough to remember life in 1970s Britain will recall an almost universal sense of utter hopelessness and resignation. Most people (but not all, as it turned out) seemed to be beyond any thought of constructive rebellion against apparently invincible forces. Decline was not just an alarming possibility: it was inevitable and crushing in its finality. The everyday business of life was not simply encumbered by incompetence and infuriatingly poor services as it is now. It was made virtually impossible: the lights were going out on a regular basis along with facilities like heating and cooking, which relied on electricity; the train service on which commuters depended (no working from home back then) was repeatedly withdrawn sometimes without warning; and essential supplies were obstructed, which caused desperate shortages of goods. It was often observed, with characteristic British irony, that it was like living through the war – only this time the enemy wasn't foreign. You know what happened next. The Thatcher Government broke the death grip of trade union power which had crippled the British economy, not just by new legislation that directly limited the unions' coercive practices but by dismantling the nationalised industries over which they had a monopolistic hold. Along with union hegemony, the suffocating grip of Left-wing councils was also brought down. I recall this particularly vividly because my family's life in the London Borough of Haringey had been turned into a class war nightmare by a vindictive Labour council whose rising star Jeremy Corbyn obligingly closed down the schools in solidarity with the striking caretakers. But the miraculous revolution did not happen overnight. The first attempt to beat the coal miners who were critical to this struggle failed because the deprivation that their prolonged strike caused was too great for the population to bear. It took the Government a year of stockpiling coal in a carefully planned strategy to survive another winter of strikes before the breakthrough came. There was no instant revelation on the political front either. The presentation of what soon became known as Thatcherism, with its transformational view of how wealth was created and distributed ('growing the pie' as opposed to simply dividing up the existing one into more equal pieces), was a major philosophical undertaking. This was no mere electoral strategy. It was a historic shift of paradigmatic social thinking: a systematic argument with the Marxist analysis that had dominated political discourse in its harder or softer forms for a century. It took philosophical thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Nobel Prize-winning economic theorists like Milton Friedman, translated into practical action by an inspirational political adviser like Sir Keith Joseph, to create solutions that no one could have foreseen a generation before. Yes children, that was how it happened all those years ago that Britain emerged from what looked like an inevitable descent into domestic failure and global insignificance. But how can this be relevant now? After all, we have learnt the essential lessons about how to create economic growth and encourage the spread of it through society – haven't we? We know that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish if actual wealth is to increase, and that the state can only spend real money that markets produce if it is not to bankrupt the nation with debt. And, what is more, if the state inhibits or depresses the ability of private entrepreneurialism to flourish, there will be no possibility of it improving living conditions for anyone. Surely we know all this – don't we? The awareness of it must be embedded in the consciousness of every serious politician who aspires to power. (The unserious ones who are so ideologically purblind that they will not accept it are, I genuinely believe, unlikely ever to be more than a disruptive nuisance.) Blairite Labour had to demonstrate that it had been converted to the new truth before it could hope to be re-elected. It staged a ceremonial renunciation of the old dogma with the removal of its commitment to state ownership of the means of production and declared itself enthusiastically committed to capitalist free markets – so long as they were accompanied by 'social fairness' (which was, unfortunately, redistribution by another name). After all that, here we are. A new Old Labour Government is now restoring the suffocating employment rights which make the dynamism and flexibility of entrepreneurial business impossibly difficult. It promises enormous amounts of money that don't exist and cannot be produced, because of the restrictions it has put on private enterprise, to public services like the NHS designed on the old monopolistic model. It caves in, without a struggle, to the demands of every public sector union for all the world as if the 1980s had never happened. What is at the heart of this? To understand such retrograde thinking, you must listen to the rhetoric in which it is expressed. The Prime Minister and his hapless Chancellor speak of 'working people' as a homogeneous class whose communities are as conformist and predictable in their attitudes and loyalties as they were 50 years or more ago. Their lives are seen as inextricably bound up (and limited by) a single local industry which must be renewed or replaced by another industry or by a technological revolution into which the population can be inducted. There appears to be no understanding that what used to be a solid, passive working class which wanted nothing more than safe jobs for itself and its progeny was awakened by the 1980s to the possibility of social mobility. The working people to whom Labour is offering its expensive beneficence may now quite possibly be inclined to start up their own ventures and move on. Pouring government money into regional capital projects will mean taxing their new enterprises into the grave. The revelation of the Blair years was that there were lots of working (class) people who did not welcome the traditional, patronising Labour message. They may still be a minority, these brave individualists, but they are the future and they will not be ignored. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay aims to get party ‘back on the pitch'
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay has insisted his party can 'get back on the pitch' as he set Conservatives the target of increasing their number of seats at Holyrood in next May's election. Mr Findlay said some wanted to 'write off' the Tories, but he believed they could win seats from the SNP in the 2026 vote, holding out the potential of even ousting First Minister John Swinney from his Perthshire constituency. While polls have pointed to Nigel Farage's Reform party – which has no seats at Holyrood at present – overtaking the Tories, Mr Findlay made clear he was 'not prepared to accept doom and gloom'. He promised his party would offer voters a 'a common-sense vision for Scotland's future'. He set out plans to save £650 million by 'cutting red tape, getting a grip on spending and harnessing business expertise', with the cash to be used to cut taxes for Scots. He also vowed the Tories would 'scrap' Scotland's 'unaffordable and unachievable' target of reaching net zero by 2045. Mr Findlay added he would boost doctor numbers by setting a target to have more Scottish medical students, and tackle classroom violence and improve education with a 'firmer approach' to school discipline. In his first major conference speech since becoming Scottish Tory leader last year, Mr Findlay said: 'We will aim to take on and defeat the SNP in more constituencies. 'Not just hold on to what we have but win more.' 🗣️ @RussellFindlay1: "We will aim to take on and defeat the SNP in more constituencies. "Not just hold onto what we have but win more."#SCC25 — Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) June 14, 2025 He added: 'Pundits want to write off our party. 'But I'm an optimist. I'm not prepared to accept doom and gloom. 'Where we are today is not necessarily where we will be tomorrow. 'By working hard, sticking to our values, and holding our nerve, we can and will turn things around.' The Tories returned 31 MSPs at Holyrood in the last Scottish elections in 2021, and Mr Findlay said the target of winning more is 'optimistic' but 'also realistic if you speak to people'. He even set his sights on winning the Perthshire North seat of Mr Swinney, saying that while the SNP 'will do everything to protect' its leader there, seats like that 'can be in play for us'. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, Mr Findlay said: 'Wouldn't that be some prize? Swinney paying the price for his abysmal record.' He claimed that Mr Swinney was 'an Amstrad politician in the Apple age', adding the First Minister would 'impoverish Scotland in pursuit of his perverse lifelong desire to destroy the UK'. Mr Findlay said: 'People like him are why voters have lost trust in politics.' Next May's election should be a 'referendum on the SNP's record', Mr Findlay said, adding there is a 'binary choice between the change that Scotland so urgently needs or more of the same from John Swinney'. The Scottish Conservative leader told his party: 'I guarantee that we will stand on a manifesto with funded tax cuts.' 🗣️ @RussellFindlay1: "Let's make the Holyrood election a referendum on the SNP's record. "A binary choice between the change that Scotland so urgently needs or more of the same from John Swinney."#SCC25 — Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) June 14, 2025 His pledge to save £650 million would be achieved with a Taxpayer Savings Act, and he said the Tories would also 'shut down quangos that don't deliver value' and reverse the £20,000 a year pay rise for Scottish ministers delivered by Mr Swinney'. Civil service jobs would be reduced to the level of 10 years ago and there would be 'much stricter rules on pay rises' for public sector workers. In a move similar to US President Donald Trump's creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), Mr Findlay promised to bring in a Scottish Agency of Value and Efficiency (Save) to be run by business leaders 'tasked with wielding a claymore on waste'. On energy, the Scottish Tory leader said the party would 'scrap the SNP's 2045 net zero target', insisting it is 'unaffordable and unachievable'. He told party supporters: 'Instead of spending this money on SNP eco projects, we would use it to protect oil and gas workers' livelihoods.' 🗣️ @RussellFindlay1: "Today I can announce that we would introduce a Taxpayer Savings Act to get the books in order and deliver better value. "This proposal would save £650 million by cutting red tape, getting a grip on spending, and harnessing business expertise."#SCC25 — Scottish Conservatives (@ScotTories) June 14, 2025 He said the Tories would 'would take £100 off every household energy bill in Scotland from the proceeds of leasing our waters to wind farms', and would give residents new legal powers to oppose 'mega-pylons'. On education, he also promised 'less bureaucracy' and said teachers should be free to 'instil discipline… because violence in schools has reached truly horrific levels'. 'We must now take a firmer approach. Exclusions are not cruel, but sometimes necessary.' To tackle problems in the NHS he said 'the way to deliver more doctors is simple common sense', claiming what is needed is 'more Scottish students training to join Scotland's NHS'. Arguing Scottish medical students are more likely to work in Scotland after finishing their training than their overseas counterparts, Mr Findlay said the Tories would set a new target for the number of Scottish medical students at Scottish universities.