Hollande spouts even more rubbish

[woolybanana]

The soon to be ex-President of France has been spouting his usual load of garbage again, but this takes the biscuit:

«Quand il n'y a plus de fonctionnaires, il n'y a plus d'Etat et quand il n'y a plus d'Etat, il n'y a plus de France»

His concept of the State is essentially dictatorial and distant from the citizen with political democracy maintained by a loyal and constantly expanding cadre of drones. East German of old writ large. And to think, he and his fellow cretins have been in charge of this country for so many sad years.

[EuroTrash]

Well I suppose what he said is true as far as it goes, but I can't see the number of foncs going from *!@*, *** to 0 overnight...

[woolybanana]

Fonctionnaires are a priviledge and not a right and ceratinly not a duty, nor do they define a State.

The State has a duty to spend taxpayers money wisely and frugally which means constantly bearing down on spending and not, as is often the case, condoning waste.

Just read the monthly reports from the Cours des Comptes whose findings of misspending are eyewatering, but does anything get done. Not with politicians like Hollande in charge.

Before anyone gets on, one is NOT referring to the police, nurses, teachers, and other front line staff but to the penpushers and cadres who live higher up the pyramid and who are the most useless and difficult to dislodge, or to get to work properly.

[EuroTrash]

I agree they're a privilege not a right and not a duty, and I totally agree they need cutting back on hugely, I was just pointing out that one or one or two are a necessity and therefore Hollande's statement is true as far as it goes. The elected representatives themselves simply would not have time to collect in all the taxes and spend them again and run the health service and etc etc without a few people to help, and they can't privatise it all, so their little helpers will be - fonctionnaires. Without any, the state couldn't operate and would fall to pieces very quickly.

[Gluestick]

Seems M. Hollande has converted from a Socialist (well, sorta!) to a Libertarian, Wooly.

As I have stated so often in the past few years - sigh - to the point of ad nauseam, the voter, citizen and most critically, TAX PAYER, is clearly viewed by career politicians as simply an irritation en route to power, influence and vast increase in personal wealth...

[:@]

[woolybanana]

Couldn't agree more, Gluey

[idun]

I firmly believe that Hollande believes what he said. Napoleon started this system and woe betide anyone who interferes with it............ the road to ruin as seen by those with the power.

As a good french friend said to me last time I spoke to her, all these Napoleon laws and rules, need a good triage and bringing up to date.

[richard51]

What do you mean when you say that fonctionaires ( civil servants) are a privilege? They are a necessity to ensure the smooth running of an administrative system - nothing more and nothing less. Unfortunately, they tend to grow to obscene proportions. However, giving the job to the private sector does add at least another 10% or so to the total cost for profits. The public sector needs to be constrained in some way.

In terms of politicians - yes they are, with a few exceptions, career people more interested in their own well being and influence.

Therefore they are more interested in perpetuating the system that benefits them rather than the voters.

To this end I believe that the centre ground is being conned into believing that the best way forward for the "ordinary" working person is to move towards the right. The idea is that they will somehow obtain the riches of the likes of (Mr) Philip Green! Too many people think that they are doing "ok thank you" and so are making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Unfortunately this is happening throughout the western world. God, whichever one, please bring something other than money driven status to the West.

[Gluestick]

Aha, Richard; Parkinson's Law prevails, viz:

Parkinson's law is: -

"The work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion".

See here:

Add to this reality, the natural propensity for bureaucracy seeking to ever enlarge itself, in order that larger and ever larger groups create promotional prospects and the opportunity for people to become in charge and thus improve their standing, pay and pension rights!

Bureaucrats are desperate to create their own self-sustaining continuum; and thereby control more and more until they become indispensable to the perpetuation of a system that they themselves have created!

 

[richard51]

Gluestick thank you for describing Parkinsons law which I am sure everybody, including myself, is aware of.

However please address the points raised in the post.

[woolybanana]

No, richard, he is right; it is how bureaucracy works. France is the classis case, of a self selected, self justifying group called fonctionnaires who protect themselves, isolate themselves and set up their own work criteria and validation systems. Even decide how and when they will work...,,,need I go on.

Hollande is the head of that system which he justifies on the grounds of the stability of the State.

[richard51]

Still not sure why they are a privilege. Still think that an efficient system for administration is a necessity. Still think that, with some excellent exceptions, politicians are money grabbing self-centred career people. I do agree that current systems need major overhaul.

I thought that is what I pretty much said.

[Gluestick]

[quote] Gluestick thank you for describing Parkinsons law which I am sure everybody, including myself, is aware of.

[/quote]

Well, Richard, I am not sure "most people" either actually do; or even remember it.

[quote]However please address the points raised in the post.

[/quote]

Well, I rather thought I did address those points, Richard!

Worth us remembering, perhaps, one of the first things M. le President "Wobbly Jelly" did, after his victory, was to significantly increase  the size of the French Civil Service. For no good reason and without any justification whatsoever.

[woolybanana]

richard, I didn' answer your query. Anyone who is paid out of the public purse, which is the taxpayer, which is you and me is privileged to be entrusted to do a job by the people who pay (pwp) and has a duty to do that job to the best of their ability, not seek to take advantage. The State employs such people, the State is granted the privilege of spending pwp's money on such employees and has a duty to oversee their performance. Thus the State employees are a privilege, not a right or a duty.

Nor are they the State itself, nor should they be, nor can they ever be because, quite simply, this creates a system where the fonctionnaire caste rules all others for its own benefit, and the duty of elected officials would be to promote and protect that caste.

Which is why fonctionnaires should never, never be allowed to seek elected office.

[richard51]

Thank you for the explanation. One could argue, and I would, that most employed people are therefore privileged.

[woolybanana]

There is, of course, a duty to work well, but in the private sector, employees do not, largely depend on the taxpayer for their wages, but where they receive a subsidy of some sort, there is privilege, of course which has to be respected.

[Gluestick]

The singular difference, Wooly, being, of course the private sector is driven by the Profit Ethic: whereas the public sector is driven by the desire to create and sustain profligacy. And when agreed budgets expire, simply scream for even more money to waste!

Very well worthwhile reading for elucidation on the disparate monetary value represented between the private sector and the state, is Neville Shute Norway's most valuable part-autobiography, "Slide Rule". Wherein Norway recounts the battle to finally "prove" how the state was eminently much more efficient and effective than capital and thus the venal private for-profit, sector. Shute-Norway of course worked on the private sector R101; whilst the socialist state's competitor was the R100.

Whilst the R101 flew very successfully and met all of the design brief, the state's R100 crashed, disastrously, at Beauvais, France on October 5th, 1930, killing nearly all on-board.

See here:

Perhaps worse of all, are Britain's Whitehall Mandarins; cynically explored in C P Snow's classic work, "The Corridors of Power".

So sadly, earlier this year, Anthony Jay, expired. May he rest in peace.

The journalist, Quentin Letts wrote a long obituary in the Mail on Sunday. (In my own defence I must say it is Mrs Gluey who buys it on the odd occasion, not me!). It was so very good, I clipped it to retain on file.

To all students of Perfidious Albion at its best (perhaps that ought more properly to be worst!), I commend you to read it.

Here

[Sunflower]

"The singular difference, Wooly, being, of course the private sector is driven by the Profit Ethic: whereas the public sector is driven by the desire to create and sustain profligacy. And when agreed budgets expire, simply scream for even more money to waste!"

Having worked in both sectors, I would say the private sector is driven by greed and certainly not by any sort of 'ethics'. In contrast the public sector serves to provide a social support framework for the vulnerable. It also provides a social framework for the private sector - roads, infrastructure, waste disposal, the legal system, education, health...

I am assuming that you are a proponent of Milton Friedman economics, Gluestick? The economics that drove Pinochet to 'disappear' thousands?

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Sunflower"]I would say the private sector is driven by greed and certainly not by any sort of 'ethics'.[/quote]

I use the term in the modern business analysis sense; for example, The Protestant Ethic, doesn't actually suggest ethics were particularly involved; the psychological drivers were diametrically opposite! In the same sense, describing a person as possessing a "High Work Ethic" doesn't actually and necessarily imply they are a deeply moral person; etc.

Drilling down into the "Private Sector" since circa 48% of UK GDP and around 46% of private sector are created and sustained by SMEs, the majority of which are Class Size Zero and Micro-enterprises ( and roughly the same numbers applies to all of the 12 original EU states, your are therefore all the self-employed are driven solely  and only by greed?

At some time, examine the lives and work and the moral compass of, amongst numerous others, Dr Hewlett and Dr Packard.

The "Unacceptable face of capitalism", perhaps best illustrated by Philip Green et al, has been a direct result of Thatcherism in the UK and one William Jefferson Clinton (for different reasons) in the USA.

Yes of course, the present World of finance and banking, does suffer an

increasing number of what are termed Vulture Capitalists. Yet, it always did and always will.

[quote]In contrast the public sector serves to provide a social support

framework for the vulnerable. It also provides a social framework for

the private sector - roads, infrastructure, waste disposal, the legal

system, education, health.[/quote]

I would suggest local authorities in Britain, extracting vast sums of Council tax and UBR and then failing dismally to deliver the promised services is hardly moral. any more than is the UK government's extraction of untold billions from long suffering motorists and then failing in an abject sense to maintain roads to an adequate level.

I would further suggest that schools consuming vast budgets to increasingly turn out a rapidly growing number of functionally illiterate and innumerate pupils is far from a raging success.

Waste disposal: please don't make me laugh!  OK if one has room for numerous bins etc, yet land fill continues apace, despite the failed waste disposal tax. The legal system. You really do dwell in Cloud Cuckoo land: it is at the top, politically warped; lower down it is increasingly incompetent and caters mainly for those nasty vulture capitalists I also despise. Try and find good claimants solicitors for example; hardly any left. Since the big boys focus on protecting Big Biz from the results of their chicanery; and the Legal Aid System has collapsed.

Want to take someone to court, now? Court fees went up by as much as 1,600% recently, in case you were unaware.

[quote]I am assuming that you are a proponent of Milton Friedman economics,

Gluestick? The economics that drove Pinochet to 'disappear' thousands?

[/quote]

Well sadly you assume wrong! Whilst I do follow certain monetarist theories of the Chicago School, Friedman was an early neo-con and more particularly a Libertarian.

That said his economic theories taken to Chile by grads of Chicago University, (popularly called The Chicago Boys) did indeed massively improve numerous aspects of the Chilean economy; so much so that it is now the top in 17 Latin American nations. This is bad?

You simply cannot adduce that Pinochet's actions in repressing any opposition could be directly attributed at Friedman's door: that is, with respect, a stupid as well as fallacious observation.

Finally, do your remember the heinous treatment of poor little Victoria Climbie?

And the social workers who threatened to strike if a colleague who failed the child, utterly, was not re-instated?

And this demonstrates Public Sector Moral compass, perhaps?

[Sunflower]

While you try to espouse a great understanding of economics - and yes all businesses, however small, are driven by greed - you seem to be lacking in your understanding of history, particularly that of Chile. The changes that made the most significant impact on the Chilean economy were enacted by Allende - well before Friedman and his Chicago boys got in on the act. 1960s Chile had the best health and education systems on the continent, as well as a vibrant industrial sector and a rapidly expanding middle class. Friedman's actions were absolutely linked to the mass murder of Chileans.

WRT the public sector, maybe if you had any idea of the financial pressures on child welfare, mental health services etc you might take a different view point on publicly funded services?

The constraints on the legal system (i.e. withdrawal of legal aid) have come about as a direct result of views such as your own. Viz anything that comes out of taxpayer money is bad - so screw the little guy. It's every greedy asshole for himself. This is why I despise the view points that you and your ilk espouse. The 'I'm all right Jack' view of the world.

Having spent 30+ years as an ACA and CTA working for Big 4, Fortune 100 Boards and HNW individuals I have seen too much greed and arrogance - enough to last me several lifetimes, in fact.

[Sunflower]

There is a balance.

A mismanaged public section becomes a suction device on hardworking tax payers. Having spent sometime managing a KPMG VFM project in the NHS back in the 1980s I can tell you a few horror stories! But likewise an unmoderated private section is just as big a suction device. The obvious scenario is the banking sector - but it includes the zero hour contracts of Sports Direct, the slave labour rates of SE Asia, the migration of businesses to LCAs and the abuse of transfer pricing guidelines.

Somewhere, in the middle, is where we should be aiming.

[woolybanana]

Which is where France has gone wrong; the mad Socialists seem to think that the private sector is just a milch cow to be milked to feed the State sector.

We learn much more about their real agenda when he hear the Segolyne Royale - that is the former number one woman of Mr Hollande who is now at least on number three, is now saying what a wonderful country Cuba under Castro was and that the repression of human rights, democracy, freedom of the Press and the rest was just vicious US propaganda and that is was some sort of earthly paradise.

[Sunflower]

While I agree that France is a tad too far to the left I think the UK could learn some lessons - not least about insurance covering the hospitality costs of medical treatment.

I agree with Royale on the point of Castro. The deaths under Castro pale into insignificance when compared to those at the hands of the USA. Maybe read an objective biography of Castro instead of the US 'reds under the bed' hype and paranoia?? This one is very good: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/431941.The_Real_Fidel_Castro A well balanced and very readable biography. My only criticism would be the limited bibliography - probably the result of the unexpected death of the author.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Sunflower"]While you try to espouse a great understanding of economics - and yes all businesses, however small, are driven by greed - you seem to be lacking in your understanding of history, particularly that of Chile. The changes that made the most significant impact on the Chilean economy were enacted by Allende - well before Friedman and his Chicago boys got in on the act. 1960s Chile had the best health and education systems on the continent, as well as a vibrant industrial sector and a rapidly expanding middle class. Friedman's actions were absolutely linked to the mass murder of Chileans.

WRT the public sector, maybe if you had any idea of the financial pressures on child welfare, mental health services etc you might take a different view point on publicly funded services?

The constraints on the legal system (i.e. withdrawal of legal aid) have come about as a direct result of views such as your own. Viz anything that comes out of taxpayer money is bad - so screw the little guy. It's every greedy asshole for himself. This is why I despise the view points that you and your ilk espouse. The 'I'm all right Jack' view of the world.

Having spent 30+ years as an ACA and CTA working for Big 4, Fortune 100 Boards and HNW individuals I have seen too much greed and arrogance - enough to last me several lifetimes, in fact.[/quote]

Nice rant.

Let me remind you, Sunflower, it was yourself who stated:

[quote]I am assuming that you are a proponent of Milton Friedman economics,

Gluestick? The economics that drove Pinochet to 'disappear' thousands?[/quote]

With respect, YOU attributed Chilean people disappearing at Milton Friedman's door.

Now you state:

[quote]The changes that made the most significant impact on the Chilean economy

were enacted by Allende - well before Friedman and his Chicago boys got

in on the act[/quote]

Sadly, you cannot have it both ways!

Since as you stated:

[quote] Having spent 30+ years as an ACA and CTA working for Big 4, Fortune 100

Boards and HNW individuals I have seen too much greed and arrogance -

enough to last me several lifetimes, in fact.[/quote]

Then you surely have had no time to appreciate either the Public Sector, or SME's. I have on both counts. As well as major global organisations and very high net worth individuals; and unless you worked in, Switzerland, e.g., then you would have not seen any details of their tax planning and income etc.

You further attribute a callous indifference to myself, reference "The halt, the lame and the sick". Wrong; big time!

What I utterly object to is providing local, county and regional tiers of government a blank cheque. same goes with Whitehall; QUANGOs, NGOs and etc.

[quote]The constraints on the legal system (i.e. withdrawal of legal aid) have come about as a

direct result of views such as your own.[/quote]

Wrong again, I'm afraid! On both counts.

Never mind; continue to rant on.........

[woolybanana]

Sunflower, as regards Castro, read the Amnesty report on what he got up to with his political prisoners and their comments on the nonsense spouted by the lovely Segolene