put, in the UK, there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. We
don't produce products these days to support all those plum jobs, where
a pen is pushed around a desk all day. The modern equivalent being
surfing on the web, making calls on the smartphone, or simply not
working from home. In years gone by this culture of non-productive
pen-pushers was buoyed up by thousands of African slaves on colonial
plantations. They turned a blind eye to the human misery and
degradation, butchery, torturous whippings, and other abuses. So long as
they got their salaries and juicy pensions.
ARE PAYING £BILLIONS TO NON PRODUCTIVE SHIRKERS
are there so many civil servants. Do we need them, are they good value,
and what do they actually do for their money. The cost of a top heavy
administration, is £trillions in enhanced pensions. And, you can be in
no doubt, that this number of chiefs, is one reason the UK is in such a
terrible debt situation. They are not helping, or we'd not have the
days, most administrative tasks can be accomplished by AI chatbots and
automated computer programs. ChatGPT produces better legal forms and
claims, then human solicitors. Clearly, then, we could eliminate bias in
the Courts with AI judges. This would eliminate Masonic bias, and many
of the CPS SLAPP actions, that are begun to silence critics. Most
especially, journalists who dare to blow the whistle. Excepting the
British Brainwashing Corporation (BBC). Who maintain their monopoly
position, by actively supporting the establishment.
applies to councils as well. Especially consultants, leaching off
society. There are too many officers, doing too little. The same applies
to councillors. Why do we need so many, when they don't reply to
correspondence? We have Ministers by the bucket load. Secretaries of
of Parliament. Artificial Intelligence could replace most of those.
Since, they don't bother replying to correspondence either. It's easy
street. Become a councillor or MP and just keep dodging the bullets.
There is literally an army of civil servants who actually do the work.
Too many of course. And, once again, a decent AI program would sort that
out as well.
are three layers of councillors, who do nothing when decisions are delegated:
Then there are MPs on top, with whole armies of civil servants working from home.
Why are so many councillors needed? Why the duplication of effort?
Especially, when they fail to respond to communications. You are paying
for them to ignore you, and not take on board any of your
representations. There is almost total unaccountability.
are remunerated from Council Taxes. If the administration is top heavy,
taxes will be disproportionately high, for the job in hand. Not only
that, but the abject failure of all these chiefs, to provide affordable
accommodation within East Sussex, decent roads, etc., reveals that the
mob handed approach is not working. The electorate need only one hand on
the shovel, to get the job done. Ten hands on one shovel is just plain
nonsense. The more in the mix, the more chances of screwing up.
you do not get a reply from your local, district of county councillors,
any contract between yourself and the council seeking to bill you for
services, is more than likely broken. The more serious the failure(s) on
the part of those in the chain, the more broken any deemed contract.
example, you will not get any reply, if a council is guilty of
maladministration = broken contract.
will not get any reply if misfeasance in public office is involved =
will not get any reply if there is malfeasance in public office, and you
may find documents are being shredded routinely to cover up their
wrongdoing. Which is of course a criminal offence = broken contract.
list of wrongs gives weight to the argument for AI
algorithms to replace civil servants, members of parliament, council
officers and councillors. In the quest for transparency, impartial
decision making and reduced corruption. Decisions would also be much
quicker, and instantly available, as a state of the nation snapshot at
any one time.
TOLERANCE TO OFFENDERS
obvious solution is to sack any civil servant who lies, covers up a
maladministration (malfeasance), to constitute misfeasance. Or, commits
a criminal offence, such as lying to a Magistrate. Such as destroying
evidence as part of a cover up, or lies to a court, including planning
inspectors. Wow! That would thin things out a bit.
present, those who lie and cover up malfeasance, are promoted. Not only
that, they get a bonus pension, as a golden handshake when they retire,
in return for their part in a corrupt administration, and keeping Mum.
It's a bit like the Honours
system. A favour for their favours. Though many honours are for bringing
large lumps of case into the UK economy, such as pop stars, actors, and
company executives who export products.
notice it all goes quiet when it involves allegations of sleaze against
the Monarchy, such as the allegation that King
Charles III, and his family, have benefited from slavery in the
past, in some measure. The public were promised an investigation. Where
and when did that happen, and why was it not reported. Was, any
investigative reporter the subject of a SLAPP action, for blowing the
whistle? Or, is that, trying to blow the whistle!
DAILY EXPRESS SEPTEMBER 2023 - RISHI SUNACK TOLD TO AXE 90,000 JOBS TO SAVE UK FROM ECONOMIC DISASTER
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been urged to cut 90,000 jobs from the civil service "Blob" to avoid a
trillion-pound pension black hole bill bigger than the entire UK economy.
The number of retired civil servants receiving pensions of more than £100,000 annually has doubled in the past year, and the inflation-linked cast iron benefits are set to leap another seven per cent next April.
In just seven years more than 100,000 extra roles have been created, increasing the size of "The Blob", as the civil service has been dubbed by some commentators, by 24 per cent.
Overall, the pay bill for the government workers has increased from £9.7billion in 2010 to £15.5billion in 2023. The public sector pensions bill was
£116.7billion in 2021, according to The Sun.
Former political editor Trevor Kavanagh writes in the Sun that the only way to avoid a "nuclear mushroom cloud" of a pensions disaster is for the Prime Minister to slash jobs now.
TRADING CONFLICT OF INTEREST - William Ewart Gladstone served as Prime Minister four separate times between 1868 and 1894 – more than any other
minister. His family made its vast wealth through the sugar trade, with his father, John Gladstone, owning many slaves and several plantations in the West Indies. John Gladstone and William’s brothers made compensation claims following the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act and John received the largest payout of more than £100,000, which is £12 million in today’s money. Although William Gladstone did not own slaves personally, he benefited hugely from his family’s wealth. It supported his parliamentary career, and he inherited a fortune when his father died.
He would have done well in Wealden, as a councillor, or an officer.
- In 1807 Prime Minister Lord Grenville, introduced the Slave Trade Abolition Bill. Although it was met with resistance from the Duke of Clarence (the future king William IV) and other peers with West Indian interests, the House of Commons voted in favour of the bill by 283 votes to 16 – a victory that passed all expectations.
THE SUN 6 SEPT 2023 - TREVOR KAVANAGH: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS AN INEFFICIENT MULTI-BILLION POUND BLOB - PM MUST GET TOUGH AND AXE AT LEAST 90,000 JOBS
IT’S election season and the blame game is on fire.
Labour is flaying the Tories over schools made out of Aero bars while Tories hammer spendaholic Lefties for bankrupting Birmingham.
This Prime Minister, or the next, should relaunch pre-Covid plans to axe at least 90,000 civil service jobs and freeze recruitment.
Keir Starmer's Labour is flaying the Tories over schools made out of Aero bars.
And this vicious war of words is just the start.
However, the two catastrophes were not “black swan” events, crashing down from a clear blue sky.
Politicians of all parties knew they were a threat and simply averted their eyes, hoping the fallout would land on someone else’s head.
It is us, the poor bloody taxpayers, who will always pick up the monstrous multi-billion pound tab for the blunders of here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians.
Hang around for the next catastrophe — the £2.6trillion in unfunded pensions, more than the entire UK economy — to come screaming out of the black hole known as the public sector.
Gold-plated, inflation-proof pensions for six million state workers — but barred to everybody else — are a national scandal waiting to burst upon those who will pay the eye-bleeding bill.
This giant state-sponsored Ponzi scheme is a racket paid for out of taxpayers’ pockets, with nothing set aside by the Treasury to fund it.
And it is growing like a nuclear mushroom cloud.
Eventually, as surely as night follows day, it will blow up in our faces, clobbering tomorrow’s children and grand-children who have no hope of a similar pension of their own.
These feather-bedded retirement schemes are a recipe for riots and revolution.
According to data-gathering agency Statista, public servants can retire after 40 years’ on half pay plus a tax-free lump sum of 1.5 times annual pay.
They also retire three years earlier than everyone else. [Really!
Is that not discrimination?]
The bill for public sector pensions rose by a shocking £116.7billion in 2021 alone — more than the combined budgets for education and defence.
True, civil servants pay contributions out of their salaries — but nowhere near enough to match the benefits.
Depending on annuity rates, private sector employees would need a huge £1million pot to qualify for a £50,000 pension — beyond the wildest dreams of most workers.
Yet in the NHS alone, 20,000 staff have retired on that level of income without raising more than a fraction of it out of their own pockets.
And to rub salt in the wound, more than two million state pension recipients last month pocketed a ten per cent rise in line with inflation — almost double the pay deal for striking nurses.
Index-linked pensions, plus enviable job security, were dished out in the 1960s when civil servants earned less than other workers.
GIANT PONZI* SCHEME
Today they are paid well above the average, are notoriously inefficient if not downright incompetent and often “work” from home — or foreign beaches — leaving Whitehall offices empty,
especially at the Treasury.
Many government workers earn their crust, but some are on permanent go-slow.
Others, especially in the Home Office Borders and Immigration unit, blatantly defy orders from democratically elected ministers.
And they are virtually un-sackable.
Former Bank of England economist Neil Record warns Britain faces a slow-motion car crash, “a debt which is now so colossal, at about £2.6trillion, that it is larger than the
He added: “It is embarrassing to see how little senior politicians have known or cared, and how its well-heeled civil servants have allowed a catastrophic burden to land on future taxpayers, most of whom will never enjoy a good pension themselves.”
It is possible for governments to forestall the looming crash.
Indeed it is their duty.
The only way to head off this economic-tsunami is by axing inflation-proof, salary-linked pension schemes for ALL new state employees — immediately.
TRADE UNION POWER
The schemes should be replaced by contributory “money purchase” plans, just like everybody else’s.
Minister, or the next, should relaunch pre-Covid plans to axe at least 90,000 civil service jobs and freeze recruitment.
And to prove it means business, the government — Tory or
Labour — should
dismiss unproductive workers and invite them to reapply if they want their jobs back.
It won’t happen. The public sector, remember, is The Blob.
It is the last, unassailable bastion of trade union power and its members have the capacity to go even slower than they do today.
The only time a political leader of any complexion will take appropriate action is when the Ponzi
bubble bursts . . . and by then it will be too late.
*WHAT IS A PONZI SCHEME?
A Ponzi Scheme is a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors: "a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam which generates returns for earlier investors with money taken from later investors. This is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors' funds to pay the earlier backers.
Both Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes eventually bottom out when the flood of new investors dries up and there isn't enough money to go around. At that point, the schemes unravel.
The term "Ponzi Scheme" was coined after a swindler named Charles Ponzi in 1920. However, the first recorded instances of this sort of investment scam can be traced back to the mid-to-late 1800s, and were orchestrated by Adele Spitzeder in Germany and Sarah Howe in the United States. In fact, the methods of what came to be known as the Ponzi Scheme were described in two separate novels written by Charles Dickens, Martin Chuzzlewit, published in 1844 and Little Dorrit in 1857.
Charles Ponzi's original scheme in 1919 was focused on the US Postal Service.
The postal service, at that time, had developed international reply coupons that allowed a sender to pre-purchase postage and include it in their correspondence. The receiver would take the coupon to a local post office and exchange it for the priority airmail postage stamps needed to send a reply.
This type of exchange is known as an arbitrage, which is not an illegal practice. But Ponzi became greedy and expanded his efforts.
Under the heading of his company, Securities Exchange Company, he promised returns of 50% in 45 days or 100% in 90 days.
Due to his success in the postage stamp scheme, investors were immediately attracted. Instead of actually investing the money, Ponzi just redistributed it and told the investors they made a profit. The scheme lasted until August of 1920 when The Boston Post began investigating the Securities Exchange Company. As a result of the newspaper's investigation, Ponzi was arrested by federal authorities on Aug. 12, 1920, and charged with several counts of mail fraud. In November 1920, Ponzi was sentenced to five years in prison.
The Madoff investment scandal was a major case of stock and securities fraud discovered in late 2008. In December of that year, Bernie Madoff, the former Nasdaq chairman and founder of the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, admitted that the wealth management arm of his business was an elaborate multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme.
Madoff founded Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960, and was its chairman until his arrest. The firm employed Madoff's brother Peter as senior managing director and chief compliance officer, Peter's daughter Shana Madoff as rules and compliance officer and attorney, and Madoff's sons Mark and Andrew. Peter was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and Mark died by suicide exactly two years after his father's arrest.
Alerted by his sons, federal authorities arrested Madoff on December 11, 2008. On March 12, 2009, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 federal crimes and admitted to operating the largest private Ponzi scheme in history. On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison with restitution of $170 billion. He died in prison in 2021.
According to the original federal charges, Madoff said that his firm had "liabilities of approximately US$50 billion." Prosecutors estimated the size of the fraud to be $64.8 billion, based on the amounts in the accounts of Madoff's 4,800 clients as of November 30, 2008. Ignoring opportunity costs and taxes paid on fictitious profits, about half of Madoff's direct investors lost no money. Harry Markopolos, a whistleblower whose repeated warnings about Madoff were ignored, estimated that at least $35 billion of the money Madoff claimed to have stolen never really existed, but was simply fictional profits he reported to his clients.
of the Wealden District