Thanks for providing an interesting and thoughtful article. We do need a bureaucracy, they are necessary evils in a country.
However, it would appear that you've ignored the role of psychology in this article and how it affects peoples behaviours and attitudes, along with the choices that they make. It is obvious and has been for a very long time that the civil service and most if not all NGOs and Quangos have been ideologically captured and subverted to serve and promote particular ideological interests. The same has happened across most of the West, as was the case in the Soviet Union and others socialist countries. All the institutions are vehicles of ideology and recruit, train and promote those who are adherents of the ideology and sideline, marginalise and remove those who are not. The only effective solution are to form alternatives as per Peter Hitchens suggestion about the police and as the Velvet Revolution in Czecheslovakia and Hungary proved necessary, at the time of the fall of the Warsaw Pact. Anyone tainted by the institutions cannot be trusted and therefore the things need to be removed and replaced in total.
The 'complexity of modern governmet' is the product of the size of modern government, not the other way round. If some of these departments were indeed indispensable and doing a good job, then these areas of our bureaucracy would function.
Grok repeats back what DEFRA says about itself, and from that it sounds likely that there are separate policy groups for each species of fish. In the context of a much diminished fishing industry, the bureaucracy in the background probably does need pruning.
“As with most Tories there is no curiosity as to how the system works or what it’s actually for. They just have an ideological belief that the civil service should be of a certain arbitrary size - and that efficiency is an automatic consequence of amalgamating and cutting headcounts. ”
That seems to be the line that Labour’s Wes Streeting took when he announced NHS England was being brought back within his department and hoped to have savings of up to 50% in headcount? Perhaps it’s a common belief amongst politicians of all parties?
Thanks for providing an interesting and thoughtful article. We do need a bureaucracy, they are necessary evils in a country.
However, it would appear that you've ignored the role of psychology in this article and how it affects peoples behaviours and attitudes, along with the choices that they make. It is obvious and has been for a very long time that the civil service and most if not all NGOs and Quangos have been ideologically captured and subverted to serve and promote particular ideological interests. The same has happened across most of the West, as was the case in the Soviet Union and others socialist countries. All the institutions are vehicles of ideology and recruit, train and promote those who are adherents of the ideology and sideline, marginalise and remove those who are not. The only effective solution are to form alternatives as per Peter Hitchens suggestion about the police and as the Velvet Revolution in Czecheslovakia and Hungary proved necessary, at the time of the fall of the Warsaw Pact. Anyone tainted by the institutions cannot be trusted and therefore the things need to be removed and replaced in total.
The 'complexity of modern governmet' is the product of the size of modern government, not the other way round. If some of these departments were indeed indispensable and doing a good job, then these areas of our bureaucracy would function.
Danny Kruger was apparently a bully at school according to my best friend who was at Eton with him briefly. Maybe he’s reformed? Like Farage?
Grok repeats back what DEFRA says about itself, and from that it sounds likely that there are separate policy groups for each species of fish. In the context of a much diminished fishing industry, the bureaucracy in the background probably does need pruning.
Possibly - but I don't know that, and neither does Kruger, because he hasn't done any policy work.
You say:
“As with most Tories there is no curiosity as to how the system works or what it’s actually for. They just have an ideological belief that the civil service should be of a certain arbitrary size - and that efficiency is an automatic consequence of amalgamating and cutting headcounts. ”
That seems to be the line that Labour’s Wes Streeting took when he announced NHS England was being brought back within his department and hoped to have savings of up to 50% in headcount? Perhaps it’s a common belief amongst politicians of all parties?