Tuesday, November 11, 2008

For The Fools Who See No Difference

Radio Left Wing News carries the story dreaded by the PSA.

National will immediately move to cut the core public service (the drones in Wellington) by ten percent. That means 4,000 less salaries and leather arses on chairs writing useless reports for other leather arses to read and for which to write more useless replies.

Funny how the reported saving is alleged to be only $500 mil over three years. I would have thought been more like $560 mil each year once you get rid of all the 'on costs' and assign the office leases to the private sector.

No wonder the pathetically partisan PSA said:-

"The PSA says the advent of a National Government has public servants worried about their jobs."

I will phone my foolish colleague you yesterday was bleating about National being no different from Labour.

24 comments:

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

Excellent news. Just what the country needs.

A 10% cut in the core public service is what you get for voting Grant Robertson into parliament for Wellington Central.

The payback begins. Ha ha.

Murray said...

"The PSA says the advent of a National Government has public servants worried about their jobs."

GOOD! Bought time they gave some thought to actually working to stay employed.

The free ride on our money is OVER.

Anonymous said...

Hell yeah! And that's 10% by Christmas.

10% more next year.

and 10% the year after that!

The PSA is right: every PSA member should be out of a job in three year's time!


But there's even better news: WFF bludgers are getting to pay back their welfare. This is only some of 'em - so far - but is some of them can be made to pay - why not all of them!

Anonymous said...

Heh - and it turns out Labour too hundreds of thousands from VELA last week!

jail the fuckers. jail them all

They must never ever be let near power in NZ ever again. the purge must start now. Chop civil servants by 30%; chop the remainders' pay by 30%; chop the labour lackies in the police and army; remove all (ex-)Labourites and unionistas from the voting rolls for ever - and arm the police and set them against corruption - like Labour!

LaFemme said...

I thought John Key said he was going to cap not cut: is this a broken campaign promise already?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Lafemme, he IS capping. Knee capping.

showmethetaxcut said...

I heard Brenda Pilott say on moaning report that she doubted there was any room for cutting expenditure in the public service and in fact she mused that on the contrary it should be increased.

Anonymous said...

I thought John Key said he was going to cap not cut: is this a broken campaign promise already?

of course not. National doesn't break promises.

He's capping the public service at 20,000 employees: the same number employed in 2000. The service currently employs about 50,000. He's asked the chiefs to find 5000 people before Christmas, and another 5000 each year until they fit within the cap.

Cicero said...

First thing to give the chop to is that idiotic Families Commission.

If Dunny doesn't like it then tough....

Psycho Milt said...

I'm surprised at the triumphant tone of this post Adolf, given the guys who adorn our blog's image...

Based on historical example, here's my pick:
1. The modern-day Sir Humphreys will run rings round the politicians.
2. Unable to effectively decide what should be cut, the politicians will just hack 10% off the various depts' budgets and leave it at that.
3. The Sir Humphreys, long skilled at maintaining their positions, will see to it that the cuts hit lower-grade functionaries who actually do the work.
4. Public services will suffer accordingly.
5. Eventually, an incoming Labour govt will restore the public service payroll to the bloated point at which it's actually capable of delivering the desired services.

It would be nice if the politicians would take this stuff seriously for once, but it looks like all we're going to get is business as usual from Key.

coge said...

I'm slightly concerned about redundancy provisions written into public servants contracts. You can bet these will be generous. Anyone able to enlighten me?

Anonymous said...

For a small dousing of cold awater among the excitment and fear, Key actuall said that he would cp the total number of Public Servants which means that for every back office job "disestablished" he would ensure a front line replacement was hired to deliver "public services"

Sounds reasonable to me !

DavidW

Anonymous said...

1. The modern-day Sir Humphreys will run rings round the politicians.

No Roger they wont!

2. Unable to effectively decide what should be cut, the politicians will just hack 10% off the various depts' budgets and leave it at that.

And why the fuck would that be a bad thing?

3. The Sir Humphreys, long skilled at maintaining their positions, will see to it that the cuts hit lower-grade functionaries who actually do the work.

The Sir Humphreys will find themselves unemployed in short order.


4. Public services will suffer accordingly.


And again: why is that a bad thing?


5. Eventually, an incoming Labour govt will restore the public service payroll to the bloated point at which it's actually capable of delivering the desired service


We're not going to have a Labour government for the next 10 years. With any luck there won't be a public service by then.

And if we get the anti-corruption commission: there won't be a Labour party

Psycho Milt said...

On that bizarre fantasy planet you occupy, the one in which ACT won the election with an overwhelming mandate for radical change, maybe that's true. Back here on Earth, my assessment is more accurate.

Sus said...

"Eventually, an incoming Labour govt will restore the public service payroll to the bloated point at which it's actually capable of delivering the desired services."

At which bloated point would that be? The bloated point that saw health dept staff increase by 350% from 2000 to 2007 - yes, three and a half staff in '07 for every one in 2000 - while the die-while-you're-waiting lists increase?

If that's delivering the "desired" services, I'd hate to think what undesirable would look like.

Psycho Milt said...

Pointless blather, sus. I'm not disputing the fact there are too many public servants, I'm disputing National's ability to do anything genuinely useful about it.

Re the waiting lists, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're too young to recall the public health system under National in the 1990s.

Anonymous said...

Whgile PM is right in the Sir Humphreys doing their best to save themselves, I am sure that with the growth of the bureaucracy that we saw under the Liarbore years, there is room for 10% cuts at least.
Especially in the departments where numbers doubled and trebled.

pdq

Sus said...

Annette King protested loudly about the length of the lists in 1999. The fact is that 9 yrs and God knows how many health ministers later, the lists are longer than ever.

Having said that I know damn well that National's efforts will largely come to naught, too. You shouldn't confuse me with a National socialist supporter. I didn't vote for them. How about you?

And what's 'pointless' about refuting your comment with a bona fide example of what Labour actually did?

baxter said...

The Head Offices should be instructed to reduce their staff levels to start of millenium levels immediately and all the Commissions disestablished. The reductions can start after that.

Psycho Milt said...

And what's 'pointless' about refuting your comment with a bona fide example of what Labour actually did?

It was pointless blather because you take as a starting point a year in which 9 previous years of National cost-cutting had driven public service staffing down to the point where it was almost completely dysfunctional, and you then proceed to treat that as a suitable benchmark. It's not - it's a low point in a cycle. Of course the numbers have gone up since then, because Labour had no interest in maintaining a dysfunctional public service, which is one reason they got elected in the first place.

Read this slowly, it may help: Yes, there are too many bureaucrats. The problem is identifying which ones you can get rid of without adversely affecting public services. (And before you start, you personally may dislike public services, but the overwhelming majority of the NZ population disagrees.) When it comes to establishing what can be cut without damaging service provision, National have in the past proven themselves inept and Labour proven themselves simply unwilling. And given that for the most part the proven incompetents of the 1990s will be back round the National Cabinet table this time around, expect nothing different. As I said: they'll end up just hacking some percentage off the budget and be done with it. Public services will suffer. Sooner or later an incoming Labour govt will start boosting the numbers again to repair the services. The Sir Humphreys will continue to draw salaries throughout. It would be nice if the politicians would take this whole merry-go-round a bit more seriously, but that seems beyond them.

Oswald Bastable said...

It's easy- just go sinking lid.

No redundancies needed.

Most departments have about a 10% turnover p.a

Redbaiter said...

Road Safety Dept is one pack of self rigteous scum I'd love to see out on the street. Propping up propagandising left wing TV stations with their crap commercials.

Sus said...

So after explaining the "need" for more public servants from 1999, which Labour gave you - bigtime - you still can't explain the worsening stats as a result thereof.

To re-cap your thinking, then: fewer public servants results in poor outcomes, eg pre-2000, whereas lots more since results in, er, even worse outcomes?

Irrational. Much like the thinking that the state will change the habit of a lifetime & work efficiently.

Good luck, though.

Sus said...

"As I said: they'll end up just hacking some percentage off the budget and be done with it. Public services will suffer."

You don't get it, do you. You immediately equate less funding with poorer outcomes.

In the private sector where we generate our own funding, smaller budgets require smarter thinking to get to better outcomes. This is where innovation comes into play.

But that's the difference between having to work for every cent, as opposed to being handed it.