Thursday, June 05, 2008
CAPACITY BUILDERS (UK) LTD
No not a building company as I expected when I looked it up. Nothing so constructive.
Yes but does anybody know what they actually do?
And who would actually be worse off if the stopped doing it.
It may be that what they are doing is giving money to Greenpeace & other approved "sustainable" charities which are on board for pushing for more government regulation.
They are one of the 1162 quangos that spend £63.5 billion of our money listed in a report (pp 8-35)by the Taxpayers Alliance.
The key findings of the report were:
That no government office keeps a complete, public record of
the UK’s public bodies. This is our attempt to provide an authoritative,
comprehensive list.
In 2006-07, taxpayers funded 1,162 public bodies, at a cost of
nearly £64 billion.
This is equivalent to £2,550 per household in the UK.5
Over 700,000 people in the UK work within this layer of quasigovernment.
While the number of Executive Non-Departmental Public
Bodies - the classic “quango” - has fallen since 1997, from 1,128
to 827, the cost of these has soared from some £19 billion in 1997
to £31 billion in 2007, a growth in real terms of 50%.6 This reflects
three consistent trends: firstly, the merging of multiple smaller quangos
into super-quangos; secondly the creep of government into every
aspect of British life; and thirdly, the ever increasing willingness of
ministers to farm out the responsibilities of investment, regulation and
provision of services.
Government definitions of public bodies exclude massive
swathes of ‘unseen’ government. The accountability of these
bodies is even more suspect as a result. Our definition is broader, and
captures a true picture of Britain’s public bodies’ landscape.
The organisation of British government is difficult to comprehend.
Political and financial lines of responsibility are so divorced
that it is often difficult to ascertain where responsibility lies, or
to whom anyone is accountable. With no coherent structure,
duplication of responsibilities is endemic: for example, five bodies
monitor the water industries of the UK.
Government itself does not know the true and size and cost of
government. The few official documents concerned with Britain’s
public bodies are out of date and often inaccurate. The Cabinet Office, whose responsibility it is to monitor and regulate public bodies, applies
a very limited definition of public body, and fails completely to provide
the public with clear information on the size and cost of the public
bodies.
Now when was that "bonfire of the Quangos" going to start?
Incidentally I notice that their remit is, in the best tradition of Yes Minister, not "secure a high quality, sustainable funded infrastructure" but to "work to secure a high quality, sustainable funded infrastructure" so there are no failure standards & as long as they are doing some work, or what pases for it, everything is hunky-dory.
Capacity Builders (UK) Limited (Capacitybuilders) is a company limited by guarantee and an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB). It commenced business on 3 April 2006 and assumed responsibility for delivering the ChangeUp programme (aims to improve the capacity and capability of organisations that offer services to the front-line) previously managed by the Home Office. Capacitybuilders has a £70.8 million budget to fund ChangeUp for the financial years 2006/07 and 2007/08. Their mission is to work to secure a high quality, sustainable funded infrastructure for the front line voluntary sector.
Yes but does anybody know what they actually do?
And who would actually be worse off if the stopped doing it.
It may be that what they are doing is giving money to Greenpeace & other approved "sustainable" charities which are on board for pushing for more government regulation.
They are one of the 1162 quangos that spend £63.5 billion of our money listed in a report (pp 8-35)by the Taxpayers Alliance.
The key findings of the report were:
That no government office keeps a complete, public record of
the UK’s public bodies. This is our attempt to provide an authoritative,
comprehensive list.
In 2006-07, taxpayers funded 1,162 public bodies, at a cost of
nearly £64 billion.
This is equivalent to £2,550 per household in the UK.5
Over 700,000 people in the UK work within this layer of quasigovernment.
While the number of Executive Non-Departmental Public
Bodies - the classic “quango” - has fallen since 1997, from 1,128
to 827, the cost of these has soared from some £19 billion in 1997
to £31 billion in 2007, a growth in real terms of 50%.6 This reflects
three consistent trends: firstly, the merging of multiple smaller quangos
into super-quangos; secondly the creep of government into every
aspect of British life; and thirdly, the ever increasing willingness of
ministers to farm out the responsibilities of investment, regulation and
provision of services.
Government definitions of public bodies exclude massive
swathes of ‘unseen’ government. The accountability of these
bodies is even more suspect as a result. Our definition is broader, and
captures a true picture of Britain’s public bodies’ landscape.
The organisation of British government is difficult to comprehend.
Political and financial lines of responsibility are so divorced
that it is often difficult to ascertain where responsibility lies, or
to whom anyone is accountable. With no coherent structure,
duplication of responsibilities is endemic: for example, five bodies
monitor the water industries of the UK.
Government itself does not know the true and size and cost of
government. The few official documents concerned with Britain’s
public bodies are out of date and often inaccurate. The Cabinet Office, whose responsibility it is to monitor and regulate public bodies, applies
a very limited definition of public body, and fails completely to provide
the public with clear information on the size and cost of the public
bodies.
Now when was that "bonfire of the Quangos" going to start?
Incidentally I notice that their remit is, in the best tradition of Yes Minister, not "secure a high quality, sustainable funded infrastructure" but to "work to secure a high quality, sustainable funded infrastructure" so there are no failure standards & as long as they are doing some work, or what pases for it, everything is hunky-dory.
