More layers of bureaucracy does just mean more bureaucracy

This looks fun and interesting:

Under the twinkling festive lights hanging above London’s Oxford Street on a brisk weeknight, puffer-jacketed Christmas shoppers are shouldering their way through the crowds just to get from one end of the street to the other.

The packed shopping street is at its busiest over the festive period, with crowds reaching what sometimes feels like dangerous sizes.

In an effort to ease congestion, Sadiq Khan has announced plans to pedestrianise part of the 1.9km street, with support from Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, and the likes of John Lewis and the New West End Company (NWEC).

As part of his plans, he is laying the groundwork for a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) to oversee improvements to the area.

However, the Mayor of London’s plans have sparked a backlash from the Labour-run Westminster City Council, risking a red-on-red battle over the future of Oxford Street.

Now, it’s obviously possible that one of those plans is better than another. Or even that all the plans are wrong. But our point is not about which plan - it’s about how many planners there are.

C Northcote would have predicted this. In fact, Professor Parkinson did predict it. The sole aim and purpose of any bureaucracy is to increase its own head count and budget. For that’s the only measure of success it actually has available to it.

Therefore if we have more layers of bureaucracy then and therefore we’re going to have turf wars over which tentacle of the octopus gets to claim the budget and headcount over a specific plan, project or problem.

Which does lead to one of those simplistic but, in a Mencken Violation, correct guidelines to how to deal with bureaucracy. Only, ever, have the one for any particular area.

You know, as well as the obvious, have fewer -ies and less -y overall. But that’s possibly hoping for too much in today’s mission led, cross-cutting and with strict conditionality world.

Tim Worstall