> It is not incompetence to have to hire consultants to manage consultants when there is no one left. It's making the best of what you have when given an otherwise impossible task.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. To me, if I was given no ability to manage my consultants, but forced to use them, that would be an inability to do something successfully. If I didn't kick it up and say it would be unsuccessful, that would be a failure of action too. If I was still forced to do so, the incompetence doesn't go away; it just includes those above me.

I do not malign those workers as being malicious, stupid or bad people. Simply, to me, they are incompetent in the literal sense of the term, especially if they were put in that situation (which necessarily means that those above them are also incompetent). Moreover, per the report, they used consultancies to fight the bureaucracy in the system. So they were willing participants in this quagmire.

For what it's worth, I just want efficient and effective government. It may mean that government(s) have in-house staff or they hire consultants. I think what this article elides, but the report emphasizes, is that our government is inefficient and ineffective (for a variety of reasons). We, as voters, should force government to be prudent with our money. I have no control over the various consultancies, but I do have some say in my government.