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
Search
Op-eds
-
Observations of an ex pat: Stormy Red Sea (Tom Arms)
-
By-Election Report 01.10.26 (Joe Nutt)
-
Picking our allies, a perspective on Israel/Palestine (Gillian Mosely)
-
Burnham is right to reform the triple lock; the Lib Dems should support it (James Hill)
-
Why I won’t Wayve goodbye to Black Cabs (Christian de Vartavan)
One in the eye for the Tory Bayeux Tapestry as Labour hits back
What do Britain's death-penalty cheerleaders have to say about Christa Pike?
A Week in Politics #8
Reform continue to block journalists from doing their job
Recent Comments
Chloe
It's not a conductor - it's a fully qualified driver on every DLR train. Driverless it most definitely isn't....
Roland
@Chloe - "Let’s get away from the myth of DLR driverless trains.." Too many years ago I designed computer systems for mass transport systems, the DLR being o...
Nonconformistradical
Quoting from Alex Macfie 3rd Oct '26 - 9:50am "Driverless cars are the ultimate example of this. What if the system breaks down and the passenger is stranded...
Joey Vimsante
I support devolution over changes to the voting system. I support the National devolution for Scotland and Wales. And also devolved regions for England. I t...
Jenny Barnes
The best new cars have a button to turn all that driver "assistance" off. After you have fought the steering because of "lane keeping ", suffered near emergenc...
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.