The promise of the coalition government whose design entails the compromise on the principles of the parties involved, to reduce the number of the quasi-autonomous non-departmental organisation known as quangos is a welcome development.

The Gordon Brown government launched the bonfire of the influence and the sheer size of these organisation called quangocracy to cut their number from 742 to 380 and reduce the cost from the range of £34bn to £60bn to a lesser figure.

The debate is however ongoing as to the quangos that needs to be abolished or incorporated. Considering the influence and control the quangocracy holds which spreads across almost all aspects of public affairs is due to the ministerial patronage that involves ministers exercising their powers to appoint the workforce of these departments.

Certainly the continuity of quangos like Ofcom which regulates the UK communications industries and the British Council that helps to share British expertise and talent to over 100 countries in the world is crucial to the the nation.

Tourism being a huge revenue for the nation, the National galleries and Museums is another quango that needs to be preserved. However there are other organisation that can be merged in terms of their purpose and structure.

The Forestry Commission can be absolved into the Environmental Agency in order to cut costs and simplify the resolution of related issues. As well as the incorporation of similar bodies like the various animal protection rights groups.

It has also been speculated that the quangocracy constitutes to the abuse of the powers of certain offices and campaign groups. In terms of lobbyists who try to influence legislation on behalf of interest groups often not a genuine zeal to bring about positive change.

Lobbyists like the special interest groups, consists of people interested in a specific area of knowledge and pressure groups that involves people with the same particular concerns and priorities both exist to influence government decisions.

 SIGS exists to change the opinions of the government on issues like food, learning and technology, but are sometimes manipulated by cooperations who use them to lobby for their own agendas. Pressure groups however lobby for the legislation to promote mostly good causes.

All of which boils down to the special advisers whose responsibility is to assist the ministers on the best cause of action, but are often compromised by the gifts of the affected parties.

The abolishment or removal of non-departmental public body that is funded by the taxpayers money also known as Quangos is deemed to be a drain on the pockets of the government as spearheaded by the Gordon Brown led Labour government.

The move to dissolve or reduce the number of quangos has also garnered support from the present day government but the issue is the delay displayed in its execution. A situation that can be attributed to various facts of which the accurate can only be one of speculation.

One being the body set up primarily as most would deduce to be an outlet to exercise an aspect of Prime Ministerial Patronage, that is the ability to reward followers and supporters financially or with status through quangocracy would become a thing of the past. Or the delay could be ascribed to the very structure of the coalition government that has merged two parties with their own manifesto and political agenda.

Aptly termed the most restive parliament in 50years, backbenchers who usually observe from the back now attack the prime minister, and the cabinet ministers; the collective decision-making body of the government consisting of 22 cabinet ministers are also rebelling and giving the premier a tough time at question time in the House of Commons.

 Cabinet Ministers seem to have disregarding collective responsibility that binds them to publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet ,irrespective of their personal views and have chosen to express their disagreement with the prime minister in full view of the House of Commons which is meant to scrutinize the work of the government .

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this debacle is the unwillingness of the Labour party to seize the opportunity created by the government’s in-house scuffles to their own advantage by ensuring that the proposal brought forward by the last labour government is brought to fruition.

Or maybe on this occasion the leader of the opposition party would rather the abolishment or reduction of quangos is further delayed until he attains office considering that he would also need their creation to lobby party supporters both financially and otherwise.

In either case, the British public awaits the decision of the government and at large as to the fate of quangos in addition to the request that the Members of Parliaments salaries are increased even though many think they are over paid already.

The peril prevalent in an unelected revising chamber in the Parliament of the United Kingdom  has been a concern for the citizens and the government of the country since the last century.

The status of the upper chamber made up of Lords Spiritual (senior bishops of Church of England), Hereditary Lords (inherited peerage) and Life Lords (appointed peerage) all either members by birth or appointed by the recommendation of the Prime Minister totaling about 13300 was deemed unacceptable .

 The need to address this situation produced the Parliament Act of 1911 and its amendment in 1949, viewed as an extension of the other, are a part of the Constitution of the United kingdom that asserted in 1911 the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords.

The stipulation being if the provisions of the Act are met, bills will be passed without the approval of the House of Lords, while the tenure of a Parliament was also reduced from seven years to five years.

This development progressed in the 1949 amendment Act, which reduced the period that the House of Lords can delay bills from two years to one.

Further more, in 1999 the House of Lords Act was enacted to reform  the Upper Chamber which reduced the number of hereditary peers from 759 to 92 but paved way for an increasing number of Life peers.

 Perhaps the Wakeham Commission set up in 2000 to finesse the reform of 1999 would produce a revising chamber that would be an effective check on the government and be accountable to the electorate, it was envisaged.

 The Commission recommended reducing their number to 550 consisting of appointees from an Independent Commission and an elected minority between 60 and 195 that would serve for 15 years. And the abolishment of the remaining hereditary peers.

However, heavy criticism crippled the report. The main speculation remains whether the British government is ready to abolish its aristocratic class that is profoundly connected to its history, culture, tradition and an extension of its monarchy which is the emblem of the nation.

Furthermore is it wise to lean towards a republican state and abandon a system that provides adequate Checks and Balances, in relation to the Queen as head of state that complements the Prime Minister who is the head of government? Many would agree not.