Following on from the new definition of "best people" as used by the CEOs of Barclays and RBS this week, ie greedy bankers willing to screw customers, mis-sell products, fix interest rates and launder drug money, for sake of bonus, it is clear that a new one is also needed for "efficiency". According to the online dictionary, it means the "ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort", so obviously the Tories and their Lib Dem cronies have assumed cutting jobs leads to more efficiency, because the same result will accrue with less workers. They are able to reach such conclusions as their view of the labouring classes is akin to that of 19th century factory owners, that is, being lazy, they will only ever work hard and accept low pay if under the constant threat of dismissal. Bosses of banks and other major corporations have the same idea, especially as cutting jobs is the easiest way to ensure a massive bonus for themselves at the end of the year, as just witnessed with Horta-Orosio.
Well clearly, there are numerous examples which prove conclusively that such practices do not make for increased efficiency, and that, in fact, the whole idea is yet another aspect of coalition propaganda, designed to dupe us into accepting the need for a reduced role for the state, and a return to laissez-faire:
Cutting jobs at the Environment Agency has meant the early devastation caused by flooding was largely ignored, until, of course, it reached the Tory heartland.
Dismissing workers at HMRC has proved disastrous, with not enough inspectors working to stop tax avoidance and evasion, costing at least £35bn a year.
Reducing funds for schools and colleges means the numbers of teachers and teaching assistants are less, at a time when the country is supposedly falling behind "in the global race", and standards of education are below places like Finland which actually value their teaching staff, and understand the true meaning of "efficiency".
How can the health of the nation be improved when the numbers of doctors, nurses, carers and social workers are constantly being cut? How can it be efficient to increase waiting times?
Does cutting the number of fire stations mean fires are dealt with more quickly? Do tourists find their visits enhanced because there is no-one to ask at the ticket-office?
Yet when the reputations of politicians are at stake, the opposite rule applies. Take the country`s defence for instance. How can it possibly be efficient to spend up to £100bn on submarines armed with Cold War nuclear weapons to act as a nuclear deterrent, twenty five years after the end of the war? As they would be expected to last a further twenty years, it would be similar to us now still "digging for victory" or having a Home Guard!
"Efficiency" has become an excuse to cut jobs and keep wages down, all part of the extraordinarily successful con-trick played by this Tory-led government, but we`ll have to wait a few years, no doubt,before this new definition appears in any dictionary!