There is, no doubt, vast waste in government. Government projects and contract always have cost over runs (sometimes by as much as 1000% - ten times original cost stated, even taking acount of inflation).

Even in 1997 there were huge numbers of pointless "coordinators", "outreach workers", "rights officers" and so on in central and local government.

And every new reform (such as the "internal market" in the N.H.S.) had been given as a reason for an increase in administration. The changes in F.E. colleges and Universities alone bare looking at - in my lifetime we have gone from a position where most people who worked in such places were lecturers to a position where they are outnumbered by admin (and the lecturers now spend most of their own time on admin - as do the police).

Since 1997 there have been about a million people added to the "public sector" and the majority of them are not "delivering front line services".

However.

I is the FUNCTIONS that government has taken on (the Welfare State) that are the basic problem.

The contracts, project over runs, admin and red tape are only the iceing on the cake. The cake itself is big government.

Efforts to reduce spending by making government less wasteful tend to fail - indeed they can lead to an increase in spending. For example, the vast cost of all the consultants that the government has hired over the last few years (and the future costs of such things as the "Private Finance Initatives").

The only way to really reduce government spending is to look at the FUNCTIONS of government and say "we are not doing X.Y.Z. anymore".

An obvious first target is the Department of Trade and Industry (the D.T.I.).

It should be abolished and its functions NOT given to other departments. The government should simply not do these things any more.

Another example is the money paid to the E.U.

We do not need to pay lots of money for a free trade area, and the British people do not want to develop a Euro superstate.

Then there is "Regional Government" - the people of England do not want to be split up into Euro Regions and the regional assemblies and all the agencies connected with them should be abolished.

As should the Greater London Authority - which is just another layer of government on top of the local authorities (some 40% of the council tax in some areas in London now goes to fund the G.L.A.).

The only way to really reduce government spending is to look at the FUNCTIONS of government and say "we are not doing X.Y.Z. anymore".

All government spending is waste.

The only way to remove government spending is to look at the singular FUNCTION of government and say "we are not tolerating you bloodsuckers any more".

An obvious target is every single government department, every single local government department, and every single world government department funded from these shores (e.g. the UN, the EU, the Palestinian Authority, etc.).

The Department of Mercantilism, aka Trade and Industry, would be a good place to start, and then we just keep cutting until there's nothing left.

Alright, so 'Anarchism Year Zero' starting tomorrow, is unlikely, but if we establish the premise that all government intervention in the market is wrong, then we can work downwards from there.

I'll leave it to the experts to work out how to do it, but I like the cut of the jib of that man Sean Gabb, and his PDF plan:

The Enemy Class and How to Destroy It

Go Sean, go!!! :-)

Careul analysis of the accounts of any big multinational company will reveal plenty of "waste." It's inevtiable in any large organisation. Government may or may not be more wasteful per dollar of spending. Talking about waste in government turns the debate into one of where to spend money, rather than whether or not the government should even be doing most of the stuff it does. You can bet that anytime there is a story about government waste in the media it will be accompanied by estimates of how many "schools and hospitals" the "wasted" money could have paid for.

Well, I watched it and it was pretty superficial.

More interesting was Patience Wheatcroft in today's Times"

"Of the 23 cabinet ministers in the Blair goivernment, seven were lawyers, 11 researchers or lecturers, three trade union officials, one teachers, one economist and one a management consultant. The Treasury ministers were a more public spirited lot before they were elected, with three having charity work on their CVs, but direct experience of business was equally lacking"

Notice how few of them have ever had to operate business and persuade people to part with their money voluntarily in order to earn a living (I don't count lawyers - it's a closed shop, no overseas competition and much of their income typically comes from the govt. anyway).

Paul Marks writes:

some 40% of the council tax in some areas in London now goes to fund the G.L.A.

Which is more a measure of the wastefulness of some local authorities, demographic differences, and the peculiarities of the Barnet formula than of the evils of the GLA, unnecessary evil though it undoubtably is. The GLA precept being geographically constant (if rapidly increasing over time), the fact it is 40% of a Wandsworth or Westminster council tax payer's bill and a tiny fraction of a Lambeth or Haringey resident's is caused by the size of the other fraction.

I don't count lawyers - it's a closed shop, no overseas competition and much of their income typically comes from the govt. anyway

Well law is the true business of government. It's just government thinks its business is everybody else's.

So one should count lawyers carefully, but have an eye to their specialities. One wouldn't ask a herpetologist to run a space programme on the grounds he's a scientist, unless you knew he had some physics background on the quiet. I have no problem being governed by the unblinkered eye for humanity of the criminal bar, and the subtle mind of chancery.

Of the "lawyers" in the Blair cabinets most have actually worked as professional lefties of one sort or another, running agitation charities or in human rights or labour relations law. The only one with significant commercial experience, who might have internalised 'business efficacy' as the measure of all things... was put in charge of destroying the constitution.

The biggest government waste is its project to turn the Middle East into a peaceful, democratic region. Total write-off. And none of our business to start with.

As Guy may well know the G.L.A. has been increasing its spending at a very fast rate - so yes it is an "unnecssary evil".

Mr Maturin is quite correct, from an economic point of you all government spending is waste ( it is not voluntarily financed, therefore people must want to do something else with the money more than they want to give it to the government - i.e. it is waste BY DEFINITION).

However, we might argue over whether a strict economic view is valid for all things.

Mr Alderson is also quite correct. The terrible danger with fighting "waste" is people then say "oh good, more money for schools and hospitals" .

The basic assumption (held by President Bush just as much as by Castro) is that government spending on various services is a "good thing" and government (to show "compassion") should spend as much on these things as it possibly can.

Such a view is not compatible with the long term survival of civilization.

Typing "you" when I mean "view" (on top of all my other errors) - perhaps it is time for euthanasia.