Billions squandered by Home Office!

GrannyGravy13

My earlier knowledge of the Civil Service was garnered from Yes Minister and the Yes Prime Minister…

Not forgetting the Thick of It!

fancythat

^What isn't understood at all is that any money that the government spends into the economy doesn't disappear down a black hole (which is the assumption made by all the posters banging on about 'waste') The money stimulates economic activity which will be reflected in the GDP figures.^

Even if the likes of Ms Mone etc keeps it in her bank account??
Or someone takes the money and keeps it in a foreign bank account?

The reason I am not on the thread I presume you are talking about, is because I am fed up of disagreeing with some posters on the topic.
I dont see the point in reading up on something, only to disagree, yet again.

You didn't bother to quote my next paragraph, which addreses your point

The only real 'waste' that occurs is when this money is not spent by its recipients but is taken out of the economy by being saved or used for speculation on the money markets with the sole objective of increasing the recipient's wealth. This is money that is not being used in productive economic activity.

This is why 'the wealthy' need to have their opportunities to acquire so much wealth restricted or be subject to higher taxation. The money squirrelled away as you describe, or which is used for speculation, is unproductive, wasteful...

The reason I am not on the thread I presume you are talking about, is because I am fed up of disagreeing with some posters on the topic.^
😕

Other posters read up on things, too. Disagreement is allowed...

Visgir1

Well another front page headline about the civil service incompetence let's face it this has been going on for decades, it not just the lone politicians who made these decisions it's the experience Civil servants. Until we start calling out the civil service nothing will change.
Are the Tories finished.. No
I think the Labour Party might be finished if they don't get a hold on this.

I don't understand what you mean. Please could you explain.

The Tories are not finished.
They seem to be morphing into Reform just now.

Visgir1

Well another front page headline about the civil service incompetence let's face it this has been going on for decades, it not just the lone politicians who made these decisions it's the experience Civil servants. Until we start calling out the civil service nothing will change.
Are the Tories finished.. No
I think the Labour Party might be finished if they don't get a hold on this.

In what way is it due to decisions by the Civil Service?

Which decisions?

What isn't understood at all is that any money that the government spends into the economy doesn't disappear down a black hole (which is the assumption made by all the posters banging on about 'waste') The money stimulates economic activity which will be reflected in the GDP figures.

Even if the likes of Ms Mone etc keeps it in her bank account??
Or someone takes the money and keeps it in a foreign bank account?

The reason I am not on the thread I presume you are talking about, is because I am fed up of disagreeing with some posters on the topic.
I dont see the point in reading up on something, only to disagree, yet again.

Whitewavemark2

People clearly don’t understand what the civil service does, judging by the comments on this thread.

Perhaps a thread explaining what it does would be a good resource?

I think you have to start one, Wwmk2 (if you haven't already, I haven't seen all the N&P threads yet)

My small knowledge of the civil service is based on uni lectures from a professor who was a researcher for the Fulton Report in the '60s, from reading some political memoirs and a couple of recent analyses of how the government 'works'. You know it from the inside, I think your view could be valuable.

When billions[and that is not even millions] of £s are wasted, no matter what taxes are raised, it wont turn things around properly, economically.

There's another thread on this topic on AIBU. One poster has done two long posts explaining how a national economy works. They are worth reading and digesting.

What isn't understood at all is that any money that the government spends into the economy doesn't disappear down a black hole (which is the assumption made by all the posters banging on about 'waste') The money stimulates economic activity which will be reflected in the GDP figures.

The only real 'waste' that occurs is when this money is not spent by its recipients but is taken out of the economy by being saved or used for speculation on the money markets with the sole objective of increasing the recipient's wealth. This is money that is not being used in productive economic activity.

I do agree though, that there can be a certain lack of rigor in the commissioning of government contracts, with contracts going to companies, organisations etc which make bids containing an excessive amount of profit, but, as it was noted in the hey day of PFI contracts, the civil servants involved in negotiating contracts don't necessarily have the expertise to counter experienced company's wiles when it comes to overcharging...

I'm not suggesting that poor government is the preserve of any particular party. The PFI initiative, introduced by Major's govt in 1992 was greatly expanded by the Blair govt and is frankly, IMO, an appalling way to fund government building projects, be they schools, hospitals or anything else. However, I genuinely think certain government decisions have had huge impacts on our present day experiences. Why anyone thinks it is possible to turn some of these ingrained problems around in a year or so, totally confounds me. Rome wasn't built in a day and the problems facing our society won't be solved with even a one term government but everyone seems to demand quick solutions.

The British civil service is a meritocracy

I agree Foxie48. The weakness of the Anerican system of inserting political appointee to top and middle civil service jobs is their lack of relevant experience. In the UK the continuity of the unbiased civil service is a great advantage. Sime 95+% of government tasks are routinely carried out by civil servants with no Ministerial input at all. The main problem lies not with Permanent Secretaries and other senior staff but with politicians who are good at getting elected but lack relevant governmental experience, are ideologically committed to impossible objectives and have a five year horizon.

When billions[and that is not even millions] of £s are wasted, no matter what taxes are raised, it wont turn things around properly, economically.

But people will and contually do shout "you cant cut the NHS, education, etc etc etc etc etc"
not really realising that you can, if it was only wasteage that was stopped.

But not going to happen is it?
And especially under a Labout government[though Tories got so similar to Labour that I personally can babrely tell any difference between them now].

I think it's easy to suggest that all governments waste money and that civil servants are not up to the job but I do wonder what effect the dismissal of so many very high profile civil servants with long careers working for different governments has affected the services that we receive today. These were names that hit the headlines for a few days but probably completely forgotten by most of us. Just a few of the permanent secretaries sacked or made to resign by the last government:
Philip Rutter, Home office, actually took the government to court over bullying by P Patel but was paid off!
Clare Moriaty Brexit
Richard Heaton, Justice
Simon McDonald, Foreign Office
Jonathan Slater, Education
Mark Sedwill, Cabinet Secretary and Head of Home Office
Tom Scholar, Treasury
19 out of 20 permanent secretaries were moved meaning the expertise that they gained from their long experience in a particular department was lost and frequent changes in government ministers resulted in no one at the top having much experience. I think we are now witnessing the results of the chaos of the Tory government, particularly that of Johnson and his chief advisor, Cummins, who despised the civil service.

But he had to get into power to be able to use their lack of separation of powers - or in some cases just put himself above it Whitewave and that was because he could buy people, votes, etc.

All potential despots seem to have used and abused laws when it suits them. Whatever they can get away with - just look back at Johnson .

DaisyAnneReturns

Now there's a thought Whitewave but I wonder if it's another deflection from actually doing something. Hasn't Trump just walked over the rules and the balances of the US "written" constitution?

To me it seems our constitution is fine, and if we can't make those with power live within it why assume they will live within a new, less historically based, one.

It's the imbalance of power, wielded by the super rich, that worries me. That seems to be what has enabled Trump.

Trump is able to do what he is doing because the judiciary and civil service heads are political appointments.

That is why the civil service and judiciary in our country is independent and should remain so.

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

My earlier knowledge of the Civil Service was garnered from Yes Minister and the Yes Prime Minister…

And you know that was just a comedy series based on some groups willingness to blame "others", any "others" as long as they are identifiable, right?

Of course I know it was a comedy series, as is/was The Thick of it 🤦‍♀️

GrannyGravy13

My earlier knowledge of the Civil Service was garnered from Yes Minister and the Yes Prime Minister…

And you know that was just a comedy series based on some groups willingness to blame "others", any "others" as long as they are identifiable, right?

Now there's a thought Whitewave but I wonder if it's another deflection from actually doing something. Hasn't Trump just walked over the rules and the balances of the US "written" constitution?

To me it seems our constitution is fine, and if we can't make those with power live within it why assume they will live within a new, less historically based, one.

It's the imbalance of power, wielded by the super rich, that worries me. That seems to be what has enabled Trump.

I think we all know a bit about the Civil Service in the background. But a lot of people just go by what is said by the lone ministers they see delivering the policies. (I guess they have a desolate task!)
More information would be welcome from someone who knows how this all fits in.

My earlier knowledge of the Civil Service was garnered from Yes Minister and the Yes Prime Minister…

The US has a written Constitution….. can’t see that it helps.

Whitewavemark2

People clearly don’t understand what the civil service does, judging by the comments on this thread.

Perhaps a thread explaining what it does would be a good resource?

Definitely

Whitewavemark2

People clearly don’t understand what the civil service does, judging by the comments on this thread.

Perhaps a thread explaining what it does would be a good resource?

You mean some comments.

One thing that has been floated lately is a move towards a written constitution because of the danger of getting a trump-style government - Farage is deemed a danger to our constitution.

Johnson pushed it too far imo.

People clearly don’t understand what the civil service does, judging by the comments on this thread.

Perhaps a thread explaining what it does would be a good resource?