Governments often spend their first term blaming their predecessors, but after that governing gets harder.
So in recent times ministers can be seen heading to the Commons either to make a statement or usually answer an urgent question on the latest departmental failure.
Some even seem surprised by the outcome of their actions.
If private companies like Carillion were given further contracts, even after multiple profit warnings, is it entirely surprising that when they collapse public services are at risk?
If police cuts mean fewer officers, does that not explain why crime is rising again?
When the forensic science service was privatised, and then some of those private companies fail, isn’t it obvious that criminal convictions may be jeopardised?
If the NHS is denied the funding it needs, are winter crises really a surprise?
And when grants to councils are cut, including money for weekly bin collections, is it a shock if those services have to be reviewed or cut?
Some may argue, despite the evidence, that it will be alright in the end.
The Brexiteers who say ignore the government’s own regional impact assessments fall into that category.
There are those, often the same people actually, who think there’s plenty of the state left to cut and it’s fun to do so for ideological reasons, irrespective of risk. But there’s always a price to be paid and, as the gambling ads say, when the fun stops, stop.