tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17934023.post2526041122042948485..comments2024-03-20T12:28:00.031+00:00Comments on Liberal Bureaucracy: Thoughts from the Train: please do not feed, taunt or abuse the Civil Servant...Mark Valladareshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15773193846795037711noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17934023.post-46821438133323704922010-07-05T11:48:01.358+01:002010-07-05T11:48:01.358+01:00dougf,
You misread my comments, I'm afraid. M...dougf,<br /><br />You misread my comments, I'm afraid. Mine is not a plea for special treatment, merely an explanation of why civil servants feel ill-treated.<br /><br />However, you demonstrate a level of callousness which indicates that, perhaps, you are ill-suited to anything other than theoretical politics. The average civil servant is not responsible for the size and scale of the public sector, any more than you are. Politicians build or contract it, depending on ideology, the stance of the Daily Mail, or circumstance. Want more tax revenue, hire more compliance officers, want to imprison more people, hire more prison officers, abolish Regional Development Agencies, cut business advisors. These people don't create their jobs, they apply for them because the Government creates them.<br /><br />You can legitimately argue about the size and scope of government. I know I do. However, behind every redundancy is a human being, deserving of respect and dignity. And any Government has an obligation to consider the impact of its action on individuals and communities. Laying off civil servants will reduce expenditure in some areas, and increase it in others. There will also be other, less tangible, costs that will accrue. That isn't to say that redundancies are evil, or wrong, or misguided, simply that one asks that those making the decision think through the potential consequences of making them.<br /><br />In return, the debate about the size and cost of our governance should be protected against special pleading. Many of the most enthusiastic budget-cutters will find an excuse to defend defence programmes designed to protect us from receding threats, as opposed to the emerging ones. One person's necessity is another's extravagance, after all...Mark Valladareshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15773193846795037711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17934023.post-2730731876031080832010-07-05T11:22:59.527+01:002010-07-05T11:22:59.527+01:00"So, when you read of threats of industrial u...<i>"So, when you read of threats of industrial unrest in the public sector, remember what the average civil servant is thinking. You probably know at least one. You're probably even related to one. And like animals in a zoo, civil servants have feelings too..."</i><br /><br />Animals in a zoo ? Hardly. <br /><br />I don't CARE what the average civil servant is thinking. His employer is going bankrupt. That small factoid changes just about everything. Nor do I care about the how and why the ridiculous arrangements covering 'public servants' came into being, or how 'disgruntled' the inmates of the zoo are now that the gravy train is about to be de-railed.<br /><br />I ONLY care about the <b> no money left </b> situation. Public 'servants'(word used very loosely indeed), need to get with the program or have the program run right over them. Maybe as a start their Unions might propose,say, a 10% reduction in wages and benefits in order to preserve more jobs from the ax.<br />Maybe instead of complaining about Government initiatives such as the recent request for 'ideas' from Government employees for savings ideas, they might instead offer some ideas.<br /><br />Bottom line ----- you might have been better to have taken the road less traveled here, and gone with defending anthrax instead. Results will be about the same, I fear.dougfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01204984674967097629noreply@blogger.com