Tuesday, 21 July 2009

Frighten the buggers, then sack ‘em [updated]

PSA president Brenda Pilott fears that suggestions by Treasury head John Whitehead of sweeping and urgent changes to the government bureaucracy will only make bureaucrats “fearful” – excellent! about time some of the buggers were made to feel a cold sweat --  and “inefficient.”   Does she mean more inefficient?  Hard to believe that’s possible, Brenda.

Pilott also says “1500 public sector jobs have been lost since the general election, and it's hard to see how the economy will be strengthened by sending more public servants to the dole queue.”  Perhaps because if enough of the buggers are sacked, their dead weight will be off our shoulders?

When the economy is heading south and the ratio of worker to bureaucrat is around 1.5 workers to every bureaucrat (and falling), 1500 bureaucrats’ jobs lost is barely even a good start.

It’s not just that we have to pay for the buggers with money that could instead be spent productively, but every one of these bastards is being paid to get in our way. 

By that standard, every bureaucrat job “lost” is a bonus – even if you have to pay ‘em for a year’s holiday first.

UPDATE:  Just an example of the sort of bullshit we’re paying for.  The Ministry of Health yesterday released 4 new research RFPs, i.e., “Requests for Proposals,” or in plain English the step just before calling a tender:

  • Research project to investigate the effect of Electronic Gambling Machine Player Information Display and Pop-up Systems on Gamblers’ behaviour.
  • Research project to investigate how Gambling Venue characteristics influence Gambling and Problem Gambling behaviour.
  • Research project to investigate how Game Characteristics influence Gambling and Problem Gambling Behaviour.
  • Research project to investigate the effect of Gambling advertising, Marketing, and Sponsorship on gambling perceptions and behaviour.

To be fair, these aren’t as destructive to economic progress as the work of agencies like NZQA and the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Building and Housing, but they do give you an indication of the sort of bullshit that bureaucrats and their consultants do every day while thinking they have a real job.


  1. You can put good money on the fact that Pomious Pilott will be quoting the gross number of jobs lost without offsetting the new positions created on the 'front line.'

    That's the Labour way.

  2. Elijah Lineberry21 Jul 2009, 12:25:00

    For once I am in agreement with the National government! (eeeekkkk!)

    Anyone and everyone working for the State is, by definition, a failure in life so I am delighted so many of these chappies will be sacked and the poor taxpayers can get some relief.

    I still say we should set up a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' like they had in South Africa, where born loser civil servants can go along and confess their indolence, sloth and idiocy.

  3. Sean Fitzpatrick21 Jul 2009, 12:41:00

    My only fear is that they cut funding and jobs and yet keep the work requirements for the public service the same.

    This has happened in the past and led to self same sacked bureaucrats almost immediately taken on again as self-employed consultants commanding even higher fees!

    What is needed is not just fewer employees but fewer jobs for them to do!

  4. Sean Fitzpatrick21 Jul 2009, 12:42:00

    PSA = Professional Speedbump Alliance

  5. As to the RFP's. I just hope BERL doesn't get any of them!!!

  6. Elijah, your comment is pretty elitism and a put down. So, I interpret your comment to mean that you're a very successful person in life?

    You should STFU from making such idiotic comment like that because it is the likes of you that scare people from joining the Libz.

    Anyway, the size of the government should be downsize and I agree with National here, but I don't share the view that these public servants are failure in life.

  7. Elijah Lineberry21 Jul 2009, 13:23:00

    Hitler Youth...opps, I mean 'ACT' Youth, the reason my comments seems that way is because - I am very elitist and love put downs of those sucking on the Taxpayer Tit! ha ha!

    It is not me who scares anyone from doing anything; if someone is such a girly man they cannot accept the 'Gliding On' television programme was not a documentary on Howard Roark, do not push that on to me.

    I say again - Civil Servants are failures in life; monstrously unsuccessful people who are committing 'Crimes Against The Taxpayer'.

  8. I suspect that many of these roles exist in order to mask, justify and repair a dreadful system in the first place. Strip them away and...

  9. Just for the record... Elijah Lineberry does not speak for Libertarianz - especially when he goes off on his elitism bullshit or makes any comments whatsoever about the justice system. Any confluence of opinions between Libertarianz and Elijah seem coincidental and should be treated as such.

    Craig Milmine
    Libertarianz President

  10. Elijah Lineberry does not speak for Libertarianz - especially when he goes off on his elitism bullshit or makes any comments whatsoever about the justice system

    Despite Elijah's faults I have to say that it is sad that he doesn't speak for libertarianz on these issues. I'm starting to think he is the only one who knows what a 'libertarian' actually is.

    Public servants *are* failures in life - and they are getting paid far more than they would be in the private sector. Including Rodney Hide who is merely an ex-economics lecturer.

  11. Hmm, I know what Elijah means about state workers, and agree with him symbolically. However Elijah, how do you see the likes of Sally, Craig, Lindsay Perigo, The Dr, Police, Soldiers et al, they are or have in one way or another worked for the state - are they failures in life?

  12. Hooligan,

    The type of public servant being talked about here are bureaucrats NOT the police, army personnel etc. I thought that was abundantly clear in PC's post. Elijah and co were commenting on the former, not the latter.

    SF raises a good point.

  13. "Despite Elijah's faults I have to say that it is sad that he doesn't speak for libertarianz on these issues."
    Agreed. And if his comments scare people off from the Libz then those people would most likely be pretty damn useless 'tinker around the edges of the problem' types in any case. No loss, imo.

  14. Frighten the buggers, then sack ‘em

    then ban them from ever living on the public tit ever again: no benefits, no state or local govt job, no state or local govt contact.

    Unless they join the fucking army in a combat role

    let the fuckers starve

    What is needed is not just fewer employees but fewer jobs for them to do!

    What is needed is an amendment to the crimes act such that a reasonable belief the victim was a civil servant, unionist, or laborist, is an absolute defense to all crimes of violence from murder down.

  15. Mich, if that is so - then, yip I agree, sack em by the brigade. I'd like some clarity from Elijah though; can't assume anything with that fella.

  16. Elijah Lineberry22 Jul 2009, 09:23:00

    Lindsay Perigo made an excellent post about 'Extremism' on solopassion.com the other day, which was brought to my attention earlier this morning.

    I had to laugh to myself at the comments on this topic and the 'moderates' and their moderation/weak as water attitudes which appear to be along the lines of "yes! let's reduce the public service, oh, ummmmm, but only so long as no one actually loses their job because we all want to have a group hug and go folk dancing..[etc].."

    (and some chaps wonder why they receive virtually no votes! ha ha!)

    Tackling a matter such as abolishing an entrenched (for several generations) beauracracy does require an element of 'extremism' (ie what I advocate) rather than wimping out by setting up a committee to 'look into it'.

  17. I love it. Thanks for the info!



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.