Well, if I just look at where all these previously unemployed clowns under HC tried to steer the New Zealand mothership, than maybe this is just another case to prove that more can be less
Ah, yes BP, but whichever way you spin it, there are nearly as many public servants now, as there were in 2008. There has been some population increase to justify this, but by and large an equivalent number are on the dole queue, hence the unemployment rate is higher now than in 2008. National has tried to clip the wings of the public service, then things go wrong and they find they need to boost it again. If that wasn't the case, I'm sure they'd be trying to cut their spend. The govt expenses have not come down, but for several years the tax base did.
As in the USA, some more jobs are being created now, but this is from a previous low after the GFC. The National govt spins this along as much as they can, see tail of this article.
Ah well, Westerly - maybe you should do your homework before you spread cheap Labour propaganda and untruths to discredit other peoples posts. Shame on you.
In my books 45280 (in June 2014) are less than 45934 (in June 2008). Just enlighten us - what is the "Labour" correction factor to make it look different?
Couple of additional points ...
The number of policemen (and women) on the road, the number of teachers and the number of health staff grew since National took office. Still - they are less public servants than in 2008, but more than in 2011 - but I wouldn't call the increase bureaucrats. Much more useful than the clowns Helen Clark pulled as senior policy analysts into her bureaucratic waterhead.
The NZ population grew since National took office (I am not saying that this was National's achievement . This means that even if the number of state employees would have grown (it did not, as even cursory research shows) it would not mean that the ratio worsened.
Now Westerly - here is your opportunity to show whether you are a remote controlled Labour propaganda robot, or whether you are still able to think and act by yourself (even if it looks like you need a bit of help to do so). How about an apology for unjustified discreditation of a fellow poster and a bit of praise for the National government ?
The survey is 44 pages , most of it spin but like all stats. can be interpreted in many ways.
State employees are around 13% of the workforce or 300000 by number. 47052 is the number employed in the Public service.
45280 is the no. of FTE employees.
43181 are permanent
3939 are fixed term giving a total number employed in the Public Service of 47117
I know the figures do not match but this is statistics.
More interesting is the breakdown by occupation
Information professionals 26.9% increase (election year?)
ICT -10%, (Contracted out ? ) Policy Analysts -4.3% ( EZ may have a point) etc.
As for Nationals tricky moves “Ministry of Social Development redefined 700 jobs as customer facing when the positions were reclassified into Work and Income.
Earlier this year several hundred Health and Safety roles were redefined after being spun out of a government dept, into Worksafe NZ” quoted from the Press Article.
Evidently National have introduced a numbers cap for the Public Service which possibly accounts for the redefining of employment roles.
Note police, education and other state employees are included in the 250000 odd not classed as employed in the Public Service
As for an apology for unjustified discreditation I don't think so. ( I see you have edited )
As for National I just read how the Govt. has spent billions on the Ch. Ch. rebuild (Gerry B.)
As at least half of the cost comes from EQC payments funded by compulsory insurance contributions over many years this is typical National spin.
Geez it's the weekend -why am I doing this
The survey is 44 pages , most of it spin but like all stats. can be interpreted in many ways.
State employees are around 13% of the workforce or 300000 by number. 47052 is the number employed in the Public service.
45280 is the no. of FTE employees.
43181 are permanent
3939 are fixed term giving a total number employed in the Public Service of 47117
I know the figures do not match but this is statistics.
More interesting is the breakdown by occupation
Information professionals 26.9% increase (election year?)
ICT -10%, (Contracted out ? ) Policy Analysts -4.3% ( EZ may have a point) etc.
As for Nationals tricky moves “Ministry of Social Development redefined 700 jobs as customer facing when the positions were reclassified into Work and Income.
Earlier this year several hundred Health and Safety roles were redefined after being spun out of a government dept, into Worksafe NZ” quoted from the Press Article.
Evidently National have introduced a numbers cap for the Public Service which possibly accounts for the redefining of employment roles.
Note police, education and other state employees are included in the 250000 odd not classed as employed in the Public Service
As for an apology for unjustified discreditation I don't think so. ( I see you have edited )
As for National I just read how the Govt. has spent billions on the Ch. Ch. rebuild (Gerry B.)
As at least half of the cost comes from EQC payments funded by compulsory insurance contributions over many years this is typical National spin.
Geez it's the weekend -why am I doing this
westerly
Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?
Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?
Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.
Sorry you feel that way BP, and it would be a lot more fun if you were able to put up some better arguments, but maybe there is a shortage of material facts. Here is the article that Westerly misquoted a bit:
In Wellington, there are now more public servants than in 2008. These are generally not public-facing positions, you won't be able to access many of these people at a front counter. Regionally, there has been a slight reduction in numbers overall on paper, perhaps. But as Hamish Rutherford (press, not Labour) goes on to point out, hundreds of positions were re-defined as public-facing by National recently, when in fact there has been no change to the positions after amalgamation. So all these jobs are now no longer included in the new definition of "core" public servants, but are still in the overall total.
"The Nation" still getting National into all sorts of issues, foreign home buying, the lowering ratio of exports to GDP, Tim Groser on climate change without actually doing anything useful here, the mysterious disappearance of Jason Ede, etc.
Instead of the left-leaning posters being propagandists, I'd like to think we are speaking the truth.
It hasn't budged from around the 30% mark for several years. You can see the effect of 2008-2009 GFC in the trend to 2011, and in 2001 or so there was a high dairy payout. The data from 2011 is more readily available, and it's not that promising as far as national making any headway on their 40% target.
It hasn't budged from around the 30% mark for several years. You can see the effect of 2008-2009 GFC in the trend to 2011, and in 2001 or so there was a high dairy payout. The data from 2011 is more readily available, and it's not that promising as far as national making any headway on their 40% target.
The 40% target is to reach that goal by 2025 EZ. It is a good goal and time will tell whether it will be reached. Of course it is more difficult to increase exports as share of GDP with the domestic economy booming the way it is under this Government but may well change when the Chch rebuild slows down and the NZ$ may become a bit lower !!
Gee - that's thick, Westerly & EZ. I caught you red handed spreading Labours lies and instead of apologising and acknowledging your fault you are now trying to weasel out. Be a (wo-)man and admit you are wrong, instead of coming up with evasive excuses and new unjustified attacks. Pity the grand old party needs "defenders" with such low standards ... are you behaving this way only since you joined Labour - or are you both Naturals?
Anyway - waste of time - and no point to give propaganda machines like you more oxygen. Have a life.
This is the guy that was sacked/let go/made an offer he couldn't refuse, from the National Party on the evening "Dirty Politics" came out, but the PM and the National Party pretended he was still on the payroll until after the election, as there was "nothing to see". He had been an employee of the PM's office until relatively recently, and was working just two doors away from Key's office.
The press have tracked him to his Petone home, which appears to have been put on the market recently. He's now setting up business as a consultant, according to the press.
This guy is pivotal to the 2014 election campaign, just like Cameron Slater. I expect both of them will be hard for the press to get to, for quite a while.
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
Well, if I just look at where all these previously unemployed clowns under HC tried to steer the New Zealand mothership, than maybe this is just another case to prove that more can be less
Reply With Quote
. This means that even if the number of state employees would have grown (it did not, as even cursory research shows) it would not mean that the ratio worsened.
Bookmarks