Government Spending Benchmarking

ballooba

Is there any system for comparing the value for money achieved by the governments of different countries?

The level of service from the government in this country has not gone up in line with the level of growth in the economy. In my view anyway.

The only experience I have ever had selling to them was a domain name to a government agency.

A former private sector employee who was working with that agency said later that they were disgusted with what I got.

They paid 100 times what it cost. :eek:

[edited to fix typos]

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Is there any system for comparing the value for money achieved by the governements of different countries?

No.
Value for money is not a goal of our government.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

No.
Value for money is not a goal of our government.

Evidently not if you condider projects like PPARS, Port Tunnel, Luas, Thornton Hall, etc.

I think it should be though. Are we supposed to just keep blindly paying them taxes without caring where our money is going.

Firetrap

That's true. Anything the government ever spends money on seems to go way over budget. It's like when they hear a government agency is involved, they think of a number and triple it.

ballooba

Or in the case of Thornton Hall, the government just comes out and offers a multiple of what it's worth anyway.

NewDubliner

allie_e17 wrote:

That's true. Anything the government ever spends money on seems to go way over budget. It's like when they hear a government agency is involved, they think of a number and triple it.

Nobody knows what the budget is for 'decentralisation'. The cost is unknown and there's no way to measure the benefit.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Nobody knows what the budget is for 'decentralisation'. The cost is unknown and there's no way to measure the benefit.

Are you suggesting that there should be no budget for decentralisation?

Sounds a bit strange to me. Are you a civil servant?

cooker3

Well government spending is inherantly inefficient and not just this country, any country is the same.

When civil service is involved and ministers which are more interested in how a project is is viewed by public and not if it's cost effective then it will be always like that.

I highly doubt it would matter if Fianna Fail were booted out, no matter who replaced them I imagine it would be the same.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Are you suggesting that there should be no budget for decentralisation?

There is a open, blank chequebook, but no budget in the sense of costings or measurable value for money.

ballooba wrote:

Are you a civil servant?

I'm a taxpayer & it's our money that's being wasted.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

There is a open, blank chequebook, but no budget in the sense of costings or measurable value for money.

Are your merely stating how things are? or are you suggesting that this is the way things should work?

NewDubliner wrote:

I'm a taxpayer & it's our money that's being wasted.

Doesn't really answer the question.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

Are your merely stating how things are? or are you suggesting that this is the way things should work?

It's how things are and I don't think it's how things should work.

ballooba

Glad we cleared that up.

I found a few documents. But the statistics are old. They are from the OECD.

We seem to be about average in terms of Public Sector Employment Vs Total Employment. The figures for Public Sector Pay Vs GDP are out of whack though.

ballooba

cooker3 wrote:

Well government spending is inherantly inefficient and not just this country, any country is the same.

That's what the public sector would like you to believe.

cooker3 wrote:

I highly doubt it would matter if Fianna Fail were booted out, no matter who replaced them I imagine it would be the same.

Fine Gael claim they will be able to do better. That's the message on all the posters in my loclality anyway.

"I'll sack the wasters of taxpayers money."

Judt

Well, first off government spending is inneficent in every country on earth, simply due to the scale of things – no government is 100% efficient with its money.

However on a set of scales, Ireland is perhaps not as well off as we should be for a halfway organised first world country – though we do have good examples as well as bad, though admittedly far more bad than good.

I think it’s a multitude of factors contributing to this – political, yes, but one also has to take a hard look at things such as the civil servants, who remain constant as governments come and go and who have great power to demand decent working conditions and pay rises whilst the system they are, ultimately, responsible for handling does not work.

There are other factors as well – if you were a contractor with a government project, would you honestly not try to screw them for every penny? The people delivering the services also have a role to play – it’s the Star Wars Syndrome. When first they began shooting Return of the Jedi the production team used a different no-name picture because they knew from experience that everyone they went to for supplies and services would jack their prices up – “Because it was Star Wars.”

The government is a political institution which comes and goes, and is responsible for the system – and ultimately changing it. The civil service is a constant which doesn’t get held to enough accountability in these matters – a cynic might say “Because they can grind the country to a halt if they disagree with something being pushed on them.” Not 100% true, but anyways, another debate.

Thirdly, those delivering the services have to be held to fairer contracts – so that, for example, if they run over time and over budget because of poor planning, they can cover the cost. If the motorway gets held up because there’s a castle in the way then you just have to grind your teeth and gesticulate wildly.

ballooba

Judt wrote:

There are other factors as well – if you were a contractor with a government project, would you honestly not try to screw them for every penny? The people delivering the services also have a role to play – it’s the Star Wars Syndrome. When first they began shooting Return of the Jedi the production team used a different no-name picture because they knew from experience that everyone they went to for supplies and services would jack their prices up – “Because it was Star Wars.”

That is not true. In my experience and from what I have heard from others, the government pretty much come to you and say "Name your price, we'll try to match it."

In my case, why didn't they just go with a different name?

However, in the case of Thornton Hall, they just offered a multiple of market value off hand.

The fact is that Civil Servants know that they don't have to account for spending.

The Civil Service attitude to spenbing may be a legacy from previous governments. They have however completely lost the run of themselves since the economy got a bit better.

Civil Service contracts have always been plum like the jobs there, because there was no work, now there is loads of work but those on public contracts are still raking it in.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

The fact is that Civil Servants know that they don't have to account for spending.

That's not a fact.

Have you ever heard of the 'Auditor and Comptroller General?

Most money is wasted on projects where political interests are allowed over-ride common sense.

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

Fine Gael claim they will be able to do better. That's the message on all the posters in my loclality anyway.

"I'll sack the wasters of taxpayers money."

We seem to meet alot don't we?:D
I won't write a big long reply to this, I'll just leave you with a thought. If you reply, then I will too.

Do you think that a party that is going into government with a party that gets most of its funding from trade unions, is going to be allowed hold mass-firings? At best you'd have to spend billions on giant compensation packages, or at worst, have hundreds of cases dragged before the Labour Courts. Is it not better (albeit unpalatable), to use the current government's policy (technically the HSE's) of natural wastage?

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

That's not a fact.

Have you ever heard of the 'Auditor and Comptroller General?

Most money is wasted on projects where political interests are allowed over-ride common sense.

I've never heard the 'Auditor Comptroller General' make much noise about waste in the public service before. What exactly have they done in relation to Thornton Hall? Not much.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

We seem to meet alot don't we?:D
I won't write a big long reply to this, I'll just leave you with a thought. If you reply, then I will too.

Is that a promise?

The_Minister wrote:

Do you think that a party that is going into government with a party that gets most of its funding from trade unions, is going to be allowed hold mass-firings?

Labour would be a minority partner in a FG/Lab/Green government so they would have to give some concession here. It's unlikely that it would take mass firings to sort out public spending. Not all civil servants are bad, as I mentioned in my example above.

The_Minister wrote:

At best you'd have to spend billions on giant compensation packages, or at worst, have hundreds of cases dragged before the Labour Courts. Is it not better (albeit unpalatable), to use the current government's policy (technically the HSE's) of natural wastage?

The above is neither an example from the HSE nor one of 'natural wastage'. Thornton Hall was not 'natural wastage' either. It is just waste, plain and simple.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

I've never heard the 'Auditor Comptroller General' make much noise about waste in the public service before. What exactly have they done in relation to Thornton Hall? Not much.

It's in his 2005 report.

1: The C & AG can only highlight waste after it has occurred.

2: It's up to the government to act on the reports.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

It's in his 2005 report.

1: The C & AG can only highlight waste after it has occurred.

2: It's up to the government to act on the reports.

I was aware that it was mentioned in his annual report.

Point 2 only serves to highlight that they are in effect unaccountable.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

I was aware that it was mentioned in his annual report.

Point 2 only serves to highlight that they are in effect unaccountable.

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

The_Minister

ballooba wrote:

Is that a promise?

For you? Of course;)

ballooba wrote:

Labour would be a minority partner in a FG/Lab/Green government so they would have to give some concession here. It's unlikely that it would take mass firings to sort out public spending. Not all civil servants are bad, as I mentioned in my example above.

I'm not saying that all civil servents are bad, but I have relatives who work in the civil service, and one of them told me about a situation where there were four managers minding the same area of responsibility, where one would have done, and two would have been ideal. Large scale layoffs would be nessacery because, being a public institution, there are many people in there that are lazy and inefficient, who use up resources just by being there. A bloated institution is an inefficient institution.
Labour would have to make some policy concessions, but they would never consent to moves that would alienate a huge proportion of their voters. All those new work practices, the restructuring, the unions would be up in arms, unless it was agreed as part of the Partnership process, in which case our we would have to pay dearly.

ballooba wrote:

The above is neither an example from the HSE nor one of 'natural wastage'. Thornton Hall was not 'natural wastage' either. It is just waste, plain and simple.

IMO, it is the daily, slow wastage in the grindings of the apparatus that wastes more money rather than the one-off big headline-grabbing mistakes. You do have to acknowledge Judt's "Star Wars" idea though. If you are ever expecting value for money, like you would see in the private sector, then don't hold your breath, no government has ever gotten that.

Judt

NewDubliner wrote:

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

Both. Whilst politicians are the elected representatives, the civil service are the constant administrators. As most politicians have said afterwards, Yes, Minister was not too far from the mark. Both parties share responsibility - perhaps different levels on different projects, but you cannot escape from the fact that politicians conjure up many wasting schemes, and civil servants manage many. Attempting to shift the blame doesn't actually get us anywhere.

NewDubliner

Judt wrote:

but you cannot escape from the fact that politicians conjure up many wasting schemes, and civil servants manage many.

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

from, Irish Independent Wednesday December 27th 2006.

Extra staff committed to bolster government overseas aid
The Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has confirmed that extra staff will be recruited to ensure that the Irish tax payer gets good value for the money spent by the government on overseas aid.

More staff, why?

The_Minister

NewDubliner wrote:

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

Unelected beaurocrats overuling elected officials? That's not good.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Who, the politicians who took the decision or the civil servants who implemented it?

Both. The civil servants because the politicians don't make them accountable. The politicians in turn should be accountable to the people who elected them, but in this country it doesn't happen.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Should the Civil Service have the power to block money-wasting schemes?

See above. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the people. I genuinely believe that Bertie Ahern could pop a squat on O'Connell Street and soil the tricolour and get away with it. Within a week it would have been forgotten or people would grow to admire him for it.

ballooba

The_Minister wrote:

IMO, it is the daily, slow wastage in the grindings of the apparatus that wastes more money rather than the one-off big headline-grabbing mistakes. You do have to acknowledge Judt's "Star Wars" idea though. If you are ever expecting value for money, like you would see in the private sector, then don't hold your breath, no government has ever gotten that.

Yes, but my point is that it's not like Star Wars where the vendors are milking the studios. There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

What incentive would you suggest? Some kind of profit sharing scheme perhaps?

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

There is no incentive for Civil Servants to get value for money. Most of the time they go out and offer a multiple of market value like with Thornton Hall or like in my case they are just completely inept at negotiating.

What incentive would you suggest? Some kind of profit sharing scheme perhaps?

What about the minister who's responsible?

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

What incentive would you suggest? Some kind of profit sharing scheme perhaps?

What about the minister who's responsible?

Well, firstly there should be some incentive. As I have said, at the moment I feel there is none. I don't know what that incentive should be, but it should be looked at. I'll outline one mechanism I have seen/heard of below. I'm not saying it would work in this context but it demonstrates the sort of initiative you wouldn't see around here too regularly.

I went back to college to study for a masters this year (not the initiative I speak of btw ). One of my subjects this year was "Social and Political Perspectives on Information Systems Implementation in Organisations". One of the things mentioned was a system implemented in the NHS in the UK.

This system listed how much resources each consultant was using in a sort of league table. There were no repurcussions or reprimands based on the data. They just let the guys know how much they were spending relative to their colleagues.

Resources were scarce and consultants were constantly asking for more and more. What this reporting tool did was make consultants aware of what they were spending relativbe to their colleagues. If they were out of proportion then they would have to examine their own use of resources and see if they were being wasteful. Thus encouraging a kind of self discipline.

I have seen this in work before. Every month we would be given an email detailing how much our phone calls had cost that month. We were also given the average for our department. We weren't told what anyone else was spedning as an individual. You would however ask people how they were doing relative to you. I remember one girls was around €25 whereas mine would have been around €4. One month after that system was introduced she was sown to €13. I couldn't tell you if it had a long term effect because I left shortly after that system was introduced.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

I went back to college to study for a masters this year (not the initiative I speak of btw ). One of my subjects this year was "Social and Political Perspectives on Information Systems Implementation in Organisations". One of the things mentioned was a system implemented in the NHS in the UK.

Was this before or after: NHS IT cost doubled to £12.4bn?

One of the reasons for IT ignorance in the the public service is the pervasive policy of purging internal IT experts. 85% are due to be removed from their posts to satisfy government demands.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

Was this before or after: NHS IT cost doubled to £12.4bn?

One of the reasons for IT ignorance in the the public service is the pervasive policy of purging internal IT experts. 85% are due to be removed from their posts to satisfy government demands.

The NHS have done a lot right and a lot wrong with regards to IT. I've just mentioned one initiative they have used that worked well.

Many of the people in my class are civil servants including HSE and Garda. So
I would hope they are trying to address what you mention in your second point.

A lot of the reason for the use of outside contractors is for accountability. If the project goes wrong, which it more often than not will with an IT porject, the blame can be shifted on to the contractor.

NewDubliner

ballooba wrote:

The NHS have done a lot right and a lot wrong with regards to IT. I've just mentioned one initiative they have used that worked well.

How well? How much money was saved or what measurable improvement was there in service?

ballooba wrote:

Many of the people in my class are civil servants including HSE and Garda. So I would hope they are trying to address what you mention in your second point.

The civil service is pursuing an anti-specialist agenda, trying to homogenise skill-sets. Experienced IT staff are being replaced by contractors from the big consultancies.

Anyone in your class with any aptitude for IT is probably trying to skill-up and get out.

ballooba

NewDubliner wrote:

How well? How much money was saved or what measurable improvement was there in service?

It was mentioned in lectures but wasn't in any of our readings that I can find.

Having searched around a bit I think this initiative may have given rise to the Casemix system used by hospitals in various different countries. The self discipline element is gone from Casemix. Casemix actually originated in New Zealand as far as I can see from the below article.

The following is an article on it (not bedtime reading btw, 20 pages of pain):
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x

You will have to pay unless you are in a college whose library subscribes.

ballooba

I found the article.

The initiative was called "Resource Management Initiative". It was started in the NHS and it uses Casewise.

More info here, but I can't get any hard data on it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8591520&dopt=Abstract

Judt

Again, a problem with this debate - here, and if we ever got to the labour courts - is that neither the politicians nor civil servants want to take the blame, and instead we get a game of musical chairs rather than solving the problems. Personally, my approach would be to take a private sector approach with regards to managing the public sector - for example, if you want incentives then give real bonuses, pay rises and promotion opportunities to civil servants who get the good deal and save the tax payer money - but I suspect that doing even that would have the unions out screaming about inequality in pay and suchlike.

Whatever we need to do to solve this problem won't be to everyones liking, but frankly continuing to waste taxpayers money because we can't face up like big boys and girls and work out a solution speaks wonders about our delivery of public services. We're not the worst in the world, but where we come up short we really do look like a bunch of idiots.

Colonel Sanders

The problem in trying to alter anything in the public sector is I can't see a government having the nerve to stand up to strong unions representing civil servants or semi state workers who's membership contains a very large number of voters and who will make crippling threats of strike action if the bed is disturbed. The level of wages paid to ESB workers (described as 'excessive' in an independant report) is one example but there are many others. Look at the hike in ESB prices. the first thing any firm in the high street would so when faced with the prospect of having to rise prices by 20% is look at their cost base. Eliminate all un necessary costs, cut back on overtime and probably trim their workforce. Howevre this is not true for semi states for some strange reason. Aerlingus is another example. Now tht its privatised the buzzword is 'cost cutting' which will involve probable job losses which the unions even recognise may be inevitable. Why was this cost cutting exercise not implemented when it was a semi state and the tax payer would ultimately foot the bill in the eventuallity of loss making?

Thats the problem with politics, a politician will never do whats best for the country but will do whats best for remaining in power or obtaining power.

Macy

A few points I'd make on this thread....

1) Most projects come in double or triple the initial annoucement is because the politicians announce them on a whim and fail to provide adequate time to do a proper costing of the scheme, let alone a cost v benefit analysis. In many cases, imo, they do this deliberately as they have some indication of the real costs but once it's announced then the Government is effectively forced (politically) to fund it regardless

2) People appear to have the impression that the Civil Service, or the Semi States can say "No" to Ministers. They can't. If a Minister comes up with nonsense scheme that'll waste millions, then the most a Civil Servant can do is express reservations, but once it's Government policy they have to implement it regardless. Responsibility has to be with the Minister, as he is the one who makes the decisions. However, I would accept that many at the higher levels are effectively political appointments by FF, which doesn't help whoever is in power. In a semi state that I have experience of there's not so much a glass ceiling for women, more a glass ceiling for non-FF.

3) Thornton Hall and Decentralisation were purely political decisions, and should in no way be dressed up as an example of Civil Service Failure. It's on record that Senior Civil Servants in Finance said the McCreevy plan for Decentralisation couldn't work.

John_C

Macy wrote:

3) Thornton Hall ... were purely political decisions, and should in no way be dressed up as an example of Civil Service Failure.

This is something I've often wondered about. I don't believe that McD diliberately paid over the odds for that land. Surley somewhere along the way someone on the Government's side looked up what that land should typically cost.

McD is a barrister by profession so can't be expected to know the cost of land. There must have been someone in the OPW or somewhere else who could have called stop?

ballooba

John_C wrote:

This is something I've often wondered about. I don't believe that McD diliberately paid over the odds for that land. Surley somewhere along the way someone on the Government's side looked up what that land should typically cost.

You'd think that wouldn't you. Most likely though they probably did look it up and multiply it by a random number.

John_C wrote:

McD is a barrister by profession so can't be expected to know the cost of land. There must have been someone in the OPW or somewhere else who could have called stop?

Unless of course paying over the odds is the norm.

ballooba

Somebody is listening to me .

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNCWMHAUGB&rss=rss1

John_C

ballooba wrote:

You'd think that wouldn't you. Most likely though they probably did look it up and multiply it by a random number.

But, to me, that looks nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Why would he multiply by a random number? Is the suggestion that he was in on a corrupt deal or that he deliberatly wastes money and brings upon himself the extra bad publicity?

Also, I don't know what you mean when you say "You'd think that wouldn't you.". To the best of my knowledge we don't know each other.

ballooba

John_C wrote:

But, to me, that looks nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Why would he multiply by a random number? Is the suggestion that he was in on a corrupt deal or that he deliberatly wastes money and brings upon himself the extra bad publicity?

I doubt Mickey D was directly involved in the purchase. What I meant was, they probably did know the market value, but chose to ignore it. Who knows why they do this, but they do.

John_C wrote:

Also, I don't know what you mean when you say "You'd think that wouldn't you.". To the best of my knowledge we don't know each other.

Everywhere I have used the word "you" in the above sentencè, replace with the word "one" and you'll get the queen's english.;)

John_C

ballooba wrote:

I doubt Mickey D was directly involved in the purchase. What I meant was, they probably did know the market value, but chose to ignore it. Who knows why they do this, but they do.

I know and it's something I find genuinly perplexing. I could understand if it was a one off cack-up but between them the civil servants and the politicians seem incredably bad a buying stuff and I don't see why. To me, that seems one of the easier parts of running a country.

Fair enough on the other point, I think I took you up wrong.

ballooba

Well, it's probably often the case that they are buying off their buddies or that they stand to benefit from giving a "good" price.

Also, when I was in DIT we had a clubs and socs fund, part of which was government funds. We (committee members) were told that if we didn't use our full budget then it would be cut.

What do you think we did? We spent the money, any way we could.

Macy

John_C wrote:

McD is a barrister by profession so can't be expected to know the cost of land. There must have been someone in the OPW or somewhere else who could have called stop?

McDowell could've said I need the land for a new prison in x days as I want to make an announcement about shutting Mountjoy and opening a new state of the art prison. If it wasn't politically motivated to do a rush job on it in secret, why didn't they go the CPO route where they'd pay market price (or thereabouts) or go to tender for land in the greater Dublin area?

No Civil Servant can go against the orders from the Government - they can raise objections, suggest it's not a good idea, but ultimately they have to do what their Minister wants. We then have to wait for the CAG to confirm that the Civil Servants were right all along.

NewDubliner

The 'Star', today, Jan 8th 2007, has a plain-language review of Bertie's latest idea:

Last week we learned that the Fianna Failures were bringing in US spin doctors Shrum, Devine, Donilan to win the next election for them.

This week, Bertie tells us that he has hired the Paris-based OECD to carry out a review of the entire public service.

What next Taoiseach?

Will he be telling us that the Government is just going to slope off after handing the running of the country to KPMG or Price Waterhouse accountants?

Or maybe he’s taken a shine to the Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington or the Swiss-based Politik Symposium of Zurich?

Bertie, r-e-a-d-o-u-r-l-i-p-s, we do not need yet another report at a cost of millions that will probably never be acted upon anyhow.

Incompetent

There is hardly a Government department that is not already creaking under the weight of reports that never see the light of day.

We are crippled by chronic reportitis- the MRSA of this ailing Fianna Fail-dominated Government.

Apparently the purpose of this latest review from the OECD is to examine the whole public service to see how well it works.

Well, we already know the answer to that one, don't we, it barely works at all.

And the reason it limps along is because of this incompetent Government, which seeks to hide its failures behind expensive reports.

This is yet another example of parallel Government.

It is Government on the long finger.

It is Government at a distance.

It is hands-off Government.

It is the Government of "what, you want us to govern too?"

The OECD is just going to trot out what we all know already, but in a slicker version.

But it will not tell us what we need to know, spelled out in stark, unmistakable terms, that's if we ever see it before it also vanishes into the vaults under Leinster House.

It won't tell us why decentralisation has been an utter failure, costing us hundreds of millions already.

It won't tell us the real reason why we have a Health Department AND a Health Service Executive.

It won't tell us how come Clueless Cullen can spend EUR52 million of taxpayers' money on an e-voting system, against the advice of numerous experts and the system then fails, but he still
keeps his job.

It won't tell us why Justice Minister the Mad Mullah McDowell is allowed to bulldoze his way into a settled rural community and acquire a new greenfield prison site at a cost of EUR30 million- twice the going rate.

Dodgy

It won't tell us why so many Government-linked agencies are headed up by friends of Bertie and Fianna Fail who may or may not have a baldy notion about what they are doing.

It won't tell us why we always have endless, on-going, never-ending, hoary, old, warty, bewhiskered political controversies such as the Shell Corrib gas pipeline and the Aer Lingus sell-off.

It won't tell us why this Government never gets anything right first time around, the Port Tunnel, the M5O, the Luas.

And the OECD will certainty not deliver a review of the main problem dogging this country
- this Government which takes all these dodgy decisions, implements them in a half-arsed manner and then expects the public service to pick up the pieces.

Bertie and his cronies are now trying to scapegoat others for their failures at the Cabinet table while at the same time trying to impress us that it's taking care of business, six months before the General Election.

It's hoping to scapegoat rank-and-file and middle-management Gardai for its failure to tackle crime.

Its reckoning to flog some mangy excuse about hospital management systems for its failure to tackle everything from the accident and emergency crisis to MRSA.

It's praying to off-load some guilt on to teachers and principals for its failure
to reduce class sizes and make redundant school fund raising committees.

But as usual it's just yet another total, colossal, sinful waste of money, OUR
Money.

ballooba

Couldn't have said it better myself.