More like daft government thinking.
If the public think the civil service employs too many people and a government says they will reduce the size of civil service, thereby cutting the wage and pensions bill, one way to do it is to contract out some of the services done by part of the workforce.
They transfer those people to the contractor, but a lot of them may still work in the same place, because jobs like cleaning and changing light bulbs still have to be done, they just have a different employer.
The service contract may well include what amounts to a call out charge for some of the things that need to be done, hence the high price of changing a light bulb.
It all makes the government look good - cutting costs and manpower while keeping the services in place - and the contractors are happy - making a nice profit. And the government gets to tax those profits too and doesn't get a lot of stick if, when things go bad in the economy, some of those service people lose their jobs.
Not that I think it works out cheaper for a government to do things that way in the long run, but I suppose they certainly thought it would when all of this was done in the first place.