Why 'government' costs so much.........

From Fausty's comments:

"Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of nowhere. Parliament said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Parliament said, "How does the night watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Parliament asked, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Parliament said, "How are these people going to get paid and administered?" So they created the following positions, two time keepers and three payroll officers, and then hired four human resources consultants and five health and safety executives.

Then Parliament said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired fifty people including administrative officers, assistant administrative officers, legal secretaries and a chief executive on £250,000 per annum.

Then Parliament said, "We have had this in operation for over one year and we are £25,000,000 over budget, we must cutback the overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman. "

To which my comment - which appears to have been lost in the ether - was that 'we' allowed it to happen.

There is a better way people! More of which later - at the weekend........

And so the farce continues.....

Anyone watch Prime Minister's Questions today? Out of curiosity I did and my immediate thought, after about 15 minutes, was whether a refund from the taxes that pay for this show of crass stupidity was possible. As Calling England writes (and who has the video), it was tetchy, rowdy, with neither Cameron nor MilibandE listening to the other and neither of them actually addressing the issues. In apologising for forgetting about Nick Clegg and suggesting we make up our own jokes I think Calling England's comment could be extended to cover our political scene in total.

According to the Mail today, we understand that this year Parliament' budget is to be increased to £228million, a four per cent increase on last year's figure of £219million. In keeping with the example set by the EU, it also appears that Parliament's auditors have refused to 'sign off' the accounts - and for the second year in succession. With the national debt standing at a figure in the region of £940billion - and rising by the day, if not the hour - one would have thought the political elite would set an example by ensuring they cut their own expenditure, especially in view of the Foreward written by John Bercow to the thirty-third report of the House of Commons Commission, in which he states:

"This report covers the first year of a new Parliament.......This is happening against a background of financial stringency. It was inconceivable that the House could stand aside when spending everywhere else in the public sector was being reduced."

On top of which is the monies spent refurbishing the Speakers Apartments and the £10million paid to 'retiring' MPs - both of which I consider to be a waste of public money, bearing in mind the 'special' pension arrangements that 'retiring' MPs receive - and let us not forget the past practise of flipping homes', furnishing those homes at our expense, etc, etc.

Then of course we have other costs, namely the The HOUSE of COMMONS: Administration Resource Accounts 2010-11 (for the year ended 31 March 2011) which are well worth a perusal. For those readers interested, previous years can be found here.

If Westminster is supposed to be, amongst other things, a tourist attraction, then if we have to have a national circus perhaps someone would dig up Bertram Mills who ran his rather more efficiently and economically.