20 ms·
I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence. Which I think is a fair point but does raise
by VBprogrammer 4y ago
I think your argument boils down to don't assign to corruption what could more easily be assigned to incompetence.
Which I think is a fair point but does raise some questions about the competency of the civil servants and politicians we trust with a fairly large chunk of our income.
- skippyboxedhero 4y agoYes, I think we should do that (there are massive issues with both the civil service and civil service procurement, Scotland has significant issues here...these are probably bigger than with politicians) but we have a system with robust checks and balances (for example, ministers don't make procurement decisions...if a firm was fast-tracked, they delivered something...that doesn't mean there were no issues, but ministers aren't writing cheques to people).
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoHow does this rule work when people are both currupt and incompetent, life is the case with the Russian military? On the rare occasion anyone competent is involved, incompetence can be feigned.