Over the summer I blogged about the Treasury’s curious admission that it doesn’t know how much money it spends on, in the words of the question, “branding and marketing”. This week Dizzy Thinks spotted another example; the Treasury doesn’t know how much it spends on heating, electricity or water either. Perhaps it would be easier for someone to just ask what it does know?
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
- Why Britain should be wary of Andy Burnham's Devolution Revolution
- Andy Burnham has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew British democracy. He should take it.
- Why the Lib Dem Defence Bonds plan is a bad idea
- William Wallace writes: What do Liberal Democrats have to offer the "left behind"?
- The Lib Dem strategy review
Search
Op-eds
-
Liberalism must mean something again (Stephen O'Brien)
-
Andy Burnham has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew British democracy. He should take it. (Roz Savage MP)
-
Why the Lib Dem Defence Bonds plan is a bad idea (Nick Baird)
-
Vince Cable writes: Manchesterism and Localism (Vince Cable)
-
William Wallace writes: What do Liberal Democrats have to offer the “left behind”? (Lord William Wallace)
-
Violent drunk banned from booze after throwing flapjack at police officer's genitals having missed with Pot Noodle
-
Pontywood
-
DCMS logs off X: a second Whitehall exit
-
Ian Holm as Richard III in the BBC's Wars of the Roses from 1965
-
Liverpool Lib Dem boss accused of using "sex appeal to build fanbase" in cover shoot
-
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
-
Lib Dems return to winning ways in council by-elections
-
The Joy of Six 1542
-
Farage in trouble again?
Recent Comments
Steve Trevethan
If, as is the opinion and belief of some, liberalism is fundamentally concerned with freedom, might it help to promte liberalism by differentiating different ty...
David S
Here's something to be learnt from Brexit: For Parliament to vote to have a referendum isn't just a vote to schedule and set up an election. A vote to hav...
Jeff
nigel hunter 1st Jul '26 - 10:32pm: WH Smith sold its shops off and they were rebranded. Now the USA private equity company are selling them off afte...
Francis Chubb
The advantages of this approach are: (1) the Citizens' Assembly (or its alternative) can consider all the points that the commission would look at - indeed, it ...- Francis Chubb
I am very glad to see this article, as I have been hoping that our Lib Dem MPs will find a way to help get Andy Burnham to move on proportional representation s...
8 Comments
Why am I not surprised?
Some years ago I got a job with a household-name state-owned company just weeks before it was privatised. They too had only the most rudimentary accounting system; it could just about say how much money came in and how much went out but anything inbetween was pretty much a mystery.
It also turned out that even the most senior staff didn’t know how to evaluate a capital project even though capital spending was a large part of total spending at the time.
I didn’t stay long!
The Tories are, presumably, blaming this on Labour incompetence, when of course this has nothing to do with the party in charge but instead is a stark example of the inherent flaws of government.
I don’t see any reason for it to be an ‘inherent’ flaw. If ministers spent just a little time and effort thinking about efficiency (or at least requiring their departments to do so) then govt would run a whole lot better. Sadly, the culture seems to be to regard the taxpayer as a bottomless money-well.
So where has the culture come from?
Good question.
My guess is that too many (all?) ministers prefer to rush out a response to any “something must be done” headline in the media without pausing to consider alternatives, especially if the best alternative is likely to be a harder initial sell.
Absent a very clear and determined lead from the PM that value matters over spin, this tendency will soon become the rule. Blame Blair for exacerbating an existing trend.
The implication is that this leaves an open goal for a party with a credible committment to value for money. We can’t in any case go on as before – that way lies national bankruptcy.
I’m afraid I find that explanation rather too similar to the Tory position – ie. that there are no structural problems, it’s just a matter of management. We just need new politicians who will manage things better, and, predictably … we’re the party to do it!
As much as I dislike Labour (and believe me, that is an awful lot) I don’t buy the argument that their ministers are significantly lacking in values when compared to either Tory or LD MPs.
It’s the system that’s at fault. If we can’t offer radical liberalism, we should at least offer radical localism.
I didn’t say “there are no structural problems”. In fact I think the opposite – that there are enormous structural problems and that there is no particular reason to think one Party’s ministers would somehow be systematically better than another party’s ministers.
However, that said the cultural problem that afflicts all parties is so deep that it amounts almost to a structural problem in itself – culture becomes structure.
Agreed, hence why the only solution is to significantly reduce the power-structures of Westminster and Whitehall – by both liberalisation and localisation.