Throne Speech

[blueblood]

poo poo dressing pushed throug ha sieve right Dancer?

Lol, I still found that hilarious even if you are mostly a silly internet troll.

Well the time has come for me to leave you all once again. I hope I was as entertaining for you as you were for me. Until next time my many many fans, I bid you adieu.

I didn't know ceiling fans could access the internet...

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes and another fine Dancer thread graces this forum. Birds of a feather, please enjoy...

Edited March 4, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Visionseeker]

Can you imagine if the Tories were to go about as the Liberals did in the mid-90s? I mean, they'd drop below sight in the polls, they'd be run out of government as fast as you can say "confidence vote" and just as we are seeing some real concrete signs of recovery, we're plunged into yet another election.

The Liberals didn't plummet in the polls when attacking the deficit in the 90s, their numbers actually grew a bit. Fearing a confidence vote is not simply motivated by a desire to avoid an opposition triggered election, it's motivated by a fear of elections.

Yes, it sucks we have a deficit. I'm not happy that the stimulus money was largely wasted on pot-hole filling, when it should have be going to building real infrastructure, but oh well. Heck, I can't stand Harper, a man who I think spends half his time hating Parliament and the other half of the time terrified of it. But I have to be fair here. The deficits we're seeing are very much collaborative in nature. It wasn't just the Tories that made them, it was Parliament. If Parliament is serious about deficit busting, then there's nothing stopping the Opposition parties from putting in the appropriate amendments in the budget.

I'll wait to see the budget, but me thinks the party might be over for the Conservatives. Remember, they were ostensibly taking 2 months off the Parliamentary calendar to come-up with a plan. I suspect that the direction outlined in this speech falls considerable short of public expectations.

As to civil servants, why exactly should they be immune from the economic problems? I'm watching people I know personally losing their jobs, and then I have you somehow insisting that the civil service is so durned special that no government dare look at trimming, or at modest reconsiderations of public sector pensions and the like.

It's pablum for people who are angry. A deflection exercise that will prove extremely damaging to the public interests as we move forward. It will accelerate retirements in the upper ranks which will, in turn, create a cascading crisis in efficiency and effectiveness at every executive and managerial level in government. If you'll forgive the Stalinist reference, this amounts to an involuntary purge of effective leadership that will have serious implications on productivity, morale, and diligence in the public service. Filling increasing vacancies will mean that a good number of leaders will spend considerable efforts just learning their new jobs. And that's when the biggest mistakes are made.

[Guest TrueMetis]

As I said The whining class will keep pushing until Canada to the left until it's a fully communist state and I don't intend to stick around for that. It'll take a while, maybe 20 or 30 years but it's going to happen.

You are the whining class I have yet to see you do anything other than whine on this forum.

[Shady]

It's pablum for people who are angry. A deflection exercise that will prove extremely damaging to the public interests as we move forward. It will accelerate retirements in the upper ranks which will, in turn, create a cascading crisis in efficiency and effectiveness at every executive and managerial level in government. If you'll forgive the Stalinist reference, this amounts to an involuntary purge of effective leadership that will have serious implications on productivity, morale, and diligence in the public service. Filling increasing vacancies will mean that a good number of leaders will spend considerable efforts just learning their new jobs. And that's when the biggest mistakes are made.

That's complete nonsense. Civil servants aren't leaders. They're paper pushers. Just as a business has to tighten its belt when the economy slows, because revenues decline, so should government and its workers. After all, it's the private sector that funds government salaries. If those funds shrink, government salaries should be frozen or cut, depending on the need. It's just common sense. Government workers aren't royalty, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's immoral for civil servants to be given raises when the very workers that fund their salaries are taking cuts in some cases just to stay in business.

[Visionseeker]

Aww, civil servants might get angry? Good. Guess what? Civil servants aren't immune to the same economic downturns that the rest of us have to deal with. It's the rest of us who fund their salaries. If John Q Public has to deal with pay freezes, pay cuts, and lay offs, then civil servants should be dealing with the same economic realities. :angry:

I don't think you are looking at this from the proper perspective. If we assume that the Conservatives want to keep the present level of productivity and service delivery while simultaneously freezing spending, you can't accomplish this be creating a negative incentive environment within the ranks. No, you need stable and consistent professional hierarchy to have any hope of attaining that balance. Every member of the public service who opts to retire early because of this environment will actually cost the taxpayer between 33-50% of that person's salary in lost efficiency and productivity.

In my experience, decisions arrive at out of anger tend to be considerably sub-optimal.

[Visionseeker]

That's complete nonsense. Civil servants aren't leaders. They're paper pushers.

Your stereotype is not only ill-informed, it is dated; and on both counts wrong. Governments use computers today, so you might want to update the screed you learned from your elders with a more modern flair. Something directed at keyboards or monitors might do the trick.

Just as a business has to tighten its belt when the economy slows, because revenues decline, so should government and its workers.

After all, it's the private sector that funds government salaries. If those funds shrink, government salaries should be frozen or cut, depending on the need. It's just common sense. Government workers aren't royalty, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's immoral for civil servants to be given raises when the very workers that fund their salaries are taking cuts in some cases just to stay in business.

This might be hard for you to understand, but government... isn't a business. Businesses are governed by a single motive: profit. Governments are required to satisfy expectations of peace and order without bankrupting the polity in the process.

Oh, and it's not the private sector that funds government salaries, but rather society. There's a difference. One that I suspect you'll have difficulty assimilating, but I digress.

Businesses facing hard times don't just blanket freeze salaries to adopt austerity. In fact, most don't freeze salaries at all. They chop-off lesser performing units and give bonuses to managers and executives who are most effective at implementing entrenchment targets. If we were to apply pure business models to the federal government, we'd end up closing all federal functions in Alberta's ridiculously inflated labour and rent cost environment in favour of call centre delivered services somewhere in India, cut our military in half (after all, what conquests have they attained recently?) and pulled out of the EI business in NFLD and the Maritimes for lack of profitability.

The deficit challenges we face are very serious. Lashing-out at the people who deliver government services will likely do more harm than good to such effort.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Visionseeker

[bloodyminded]

Well I'm sorry I don't mix with poor people. Perhaps you do, good for you. I'm better then them and view them as scum that I scrape off the bottom of my shoe. I guess you're some sort of philaphropist now, good for you.

This is unbelievably pathetic. It's bad enough to be an unbearable elitist; but to be proud of being one? whew!

I wrote a letter to one of the papers up here saying the same things and it was published.

Oh, ok, that changes things. You are a published author. Only the best and wisest letters are ever published in a newspaper.

[Argus]

It's not a symbolic gesture. That will have a real effect on our pockets. It might be a drop in the bucket but anything that lowers expenses is welcome in my eyes. Our public servants, as far as I know, aren't exactly hurting compared to their private sector counterparts. I could not care less if they're angry. We're angry about the deficit.

Excuse me, but just how are public servants responsible for the deficit the public and opposition demanded and the conservatives brought in? You couldn't care less if government employees are angry? I wonder if you've ever had any position of management in any business or organization. Angry employees are employees who are less productive and who won't bother going out of their way to do anything to help an organization. They're also employees who book off sick more.

[blueblood]

Angry employees are employees who are less productive and who won't bother going out of their way to do anything to help an organization. They're also employees who book off sick more.

So are employees who are very difficult to terminate...

[Moonbox]

Excuse me, but just how are public servants responsible for the deficit the public and opposition demanded and the conservatives brought in?

Public servants reap the benefits of public spending. Blaming them, perhaps, is not entirely fair, but asking private sector Canadians to pay excessively for those benefits is even less fair.

You couldn't care less if government employees are angry?

Not as much as I care about paying extra taxes to support spending that wasn't justified in the first place.

Angry employees are employees who are less productive and who won't bother going out of their way to do anything to help an organization. They're also employees who book off sick more.

Thanks for the lesson in organizational behaviour. Unfortunately for your argument, often the demands and expectations of the above-noted employees are unreasonable, particularly in unionized organizations and even more particularly public service organizations. In such cases cost cutting measures often more than compensate for extra sick days here and there.

[bloodyminded]

Public servants reap the benefits of public spending. Blaming them, perhaps, is not entirely fair, but asking private sector Canadians to pay excessively for those benefits is even less fair.

Not as much as I care about paying extra taxes to support spending that wasn't justified in the first place.

Thanks for the lesson in organizational behaviour. Unfortunately for your argument, often the demands and expectations of the above-noted employees are unreasonable, particularly in unionized organizations and even more particularly public service organizations. In such cases cost cutting measures often more than compensate for extra sick days here and there.

Or it might be that Argus has more direct personal knowledge and understanding of these matters than you do.

[Moonbox]

Or it might be that Argus has more direct personal knowledge and understanding of these matters than you do.

Of managing public sector employees and public sector finances? Interesting...

[capricorn]

It will accelerate retirements in the upper ranks which will, in turn, create a cascading crisis in efficiency and effectiveness at every executive and managerial level in government.

Actually, retiring employees in the top ranks are those who are entitled, through years served, to the highest number of annual vacation days and many are in the upper salary echelons, some get performance bonuses. There's money to be saved by reducing the number of paid days off and paying more employees at lower rates of pay. Vacancies left by retirees at all occupational levels open up promotion opportunities that in themselves are motivators and can result in increased productivity.

If you'll forgive the Stalinist reference, this amounts to an involuntary purge of effective leadership that will have serious implications on productivity, morale, and diligence in the public service. Filling increasing vacancies will mean that a good number of leaders will spend considerable efforts just learning their new jobs. And that's when the biggest mistakes are made.

I disagree. As I see it, your assumption is that the best and brightest are retiring or on the brink of doing so. There are many upcoming and talented public service employees waiting in the wings who can function effectively at higher levels. Yes, there is on-the-job training involved but it's no different in other sectors. The best usually rise to the top and they can do much to improve productivity, morale and efficiency.