Jeff Randall pulls the trousers off the Quangos and their cost to us.
Jeff Randall pulls the trousers off the Quangos and their cost to us.
Ther are not personally armed. We are not either so why should they be just yet?
When we shall gain electoral power, the “staff” of these objects should be evicted, all of them, all at one moment, ideally (but this is not difficult to arrange) from their metropolitan offices and “country” cottages and stately homes.
At 05.00 am on the morning after the election.
A highly-trained cadre of “people’s activists, “family counter-abuse-staff”, child-rescuers, a special cadre designed to recognize and neutralise RSPCA police and anaesthatise them on sight, and “people’s dogma-rectifiers” should then enter the buildings, with machine-screwdrivers and ethernet-cable-cutters: these people know something about the hardware-architecture of modern computers and laptops, and also how to pull Mains Plugs out of Walls, safely.
They will be followed after a few minutes, by some “assistants” brought by White Vans so everybody will KNow THem, who are large, biddable and have plenty of 10-Kg mallets and Stihl-Saws**, and also the means of setting carefully-controlled fires in offices.
The target of these contiguous groups is the filing cabinets and the hard disks of the Quangotroid persons.
Then, David Cameron will be able to “govern”. But not if he does not do what we have suggested above.
**Any commeneter who knows what a Stihl-Saw is will receive a non-transferable-voucher towards the waiting-list for a 50p bottle of State-Champagne-substitute.
I am old enough to remember the time when this day was – without our being consulted – socialisticosolidaritized in Britain with the State “holiday” of the brave and victorious Workers and Peasants of the Soviet Empire. Previously in May we just had Ascenscion Day, which tended to fall at the end of the month, easter depending. Everyone (sort of) cheered, in a resigned kind of way. Stalinators here, in those times, were what his Evil Eminence Himself would have called “not serious at all”, so they just introduced “May Day”.
Which brings me to my second point. I now want to do some amateur and doubtless entirely inept forensic psychology (for I am a bumpkin) on those sorts of people who think in terms of fascism. This is to say, why some people are on purpose becoming an Enemy Class so that they can bully and push others about, in “groups”, to achieve “plans”. Nothing on the scale we have witnessed in the last 200-odd years really came about before.
The problem in Britain with Statists is that there are in my view, today, two kinds.
First kind: the “serious” ones, the Stalinators:-
There is the really, really “serious” [aka Stalin] kind, the GramscoFabiaNazis, who are (as I said yesterday regarding what they tried to do to the Gurkhas) irremediably wicked, quite voluntarily and purposefully evil, and who know and have always known __/exactly/__ what they are doing, why, and to what timetable: it would interest me greatly to understand how and why individual human beings get to be like that – it can’t __just__ have been their University Tutors, shaggable though the students might have been to them, although I frequently blame a younger Eagleton, Derrida and others for much poisoning of young and intelligent minds with Marxism. Examples in no special order are of course Julia Middleton, Kim-Il Sung, “Ted” Heath, Hitler, Ed Balls, Stalin himself, Gordon Brown (I don’t think he’s an idiot at all [it’s all deliberate], he may not even be Scotch for all we know, and he may be malingering about his eye), Mao tse Tung, “Jacqui” “Smith”, Vidkun Quisling, Tom Watson, Robert Mugabe, Dawn Primarolo (how can you give a job to someone with that name?), Francois Mitterand, the suitably-dead-butcher-pig Saddam Hussein, that guy who runs the Europarliament monkeyhouse whose name I can’t remember and haven’t time to look up, that 5-years-dead chappie Fidel Castro, his brother and successor, and so on. They employ “public relations” people, such as spin-doctors.
Perhaps being a glorious charismatic leader and killing your bugbears and others who don’t agree with you in their millions is a buzz, but I can’t quite see how. Perhaps it’s a form of autistic spectrum disorder, and I ought to ask my wife about this condition and how it in particular affects intelligent and focussed males who can’t get proper jobs as engineering-machinists, painters, bankers, dustmen, brickies, truck-drivers or shoe-cleaners. (She’s a SENCO.) Perhaps they stamped on frogs while young boys, or shone magnifying glasses on ants in the sun. We need to know.
Secondly, the “not very serious” one, the MacMillanisators:-
“Not very serious” Statists, although they either don’t murder people directly or else don’t even actually issue the orders so to do, perhaps becasue they don’t want to for moral reasons, are still often a dangerous and latent problem. They frequently look like, behave like, dress like, are brought up like, and act like conservatives, or even like liberals. They are people who can’t, not really in their hearts (for they still have some) take all the humourless pomp and self-regardingness of real, mortal deathly statism, with all its military parades, death-camps, psychiatric hospitals for those who failed to vote correctly, calling-out of all schoolchildren to mexicanwave flags on camera all day, the lack of Internal Pissports and so on, quite seriously enough. These people would, for example, _not_ shoot Catholic priests – or Imams either – who had stood up to their People’s Courts and won anyway, whether the said priests had used Jesuitical-type/Masonic/Zionist-type arguments or not. Some examples again in no special order are Harlot Macmillan, Rab Butler, George Bush (both classes of him), David Cameron, Frank Field, Silvio Berlusconi, Nick Griffin, Jeremy Paxman (what a curious name?), David Trimble, Helmut Kohl, and many many more. Perhaps these people only stamped on ants, in the rain. They also don’t really understand “public relations”. (See the buggers above, who do.)
My third point is this.
Gordon Brown’s “government” is visibly disintegrating at the seams. This is to be applauded of course, because governments that can’t pass any legislation which they want, and are moribund and hated, are what we always wish for, if they are statist. In a Judeo-Christian civilisation that has had a certain but indeterminate measure of individual liberty for long enough, say about 300-400 years, such as ours has, the absence of an administration with “power” is a grand thing and to be wished for.
But if. as we might suppose, the less-serious-statists are about to be elected, what then? True, we might see measures such as ID cards scrapped (although you can bet 50p they won’t shred the files…) for the time being at least. We might even see a few minor parts of some government departments we had never heard of being closed. Even, dare we say it, some QUANGOs might be terminated. But not many.
The Conservatives will f*** up, in government. It is in the nature of non-serious statists, who have either no terror-police or who have not been setting these up from day one, that they go about trying to undo statist stuff rather half-heartedly and without the necessary firepower they’d need to make their changes stick – they try to do it “by consensus”… which will fail, for it is the nature of masses of people to want free stuff apparently provided by someone else.
The “non-serious” think that the Stalinators have gone away – but it is not in the nature of these bastards to do so – they are much, much more resolute, and brave, and committed, that they are given credit for: they _know_ they are right (just like we libertarians do) and they _will_ stay around, in the mud and the sewers and the stagnant puddles, until the time “non-serious” statists do f** up and get unelectable, because they have mishandled the proper and total disappearance of proper statists.
There are two solutions. There is the statist one, which is to round up all the serious bastards and kill them. We could apply it, but we ought not to and it’s evil and we should not do it. And there is the libertarian one, which unfortunately takes longer, and means we have to watch, in all our lifetimes, shedloads of colateral damage, to societies and to institutions which were of value and did good, and which we can’t stop. But the solution lies in the end in better people.
But we should not, on the ejection of this government, this year or next, if it comes, imagine like we did in 1979 that the problem has gone away: for it will not. The buggers will be back, they will hide in the woodwork of our universities and “councils” in the meantime, and we should winkle them out, seize their computers, sack them, shop them to their local papers, shame them, have their houses daubed by vigilantes, have their children taken into “care” and so on – but we won’t, will we.
And they won’t piss about for 12 years next time, before getting their terror-police-network working, like they orta-av-dunn in 1997.
Guido seems to have noiced something’s up with the British Left today too.
…always set up by the EU or the Government, and pretending to be charities, while actually quangos or leftist-lobby-groups.
Sometimes we here, on whichever of the duty-typwriting squadrons is on “watch”, are tempted to emulate the language of Obnoxio The Clown, or the Devil himself. (He’s uncovered a previously unstudied State-Bogus-Charity in that one…Obnoxio’s latest just refers to some bureucrat or other as a c*** . )
But this is a family blog, so, apart from saying shit and crap which is rather weak playground stuff now, we only go so far as to merely write f*** (sometimes even c*** these days.) And also we only show pictures of Keeley Hazell wearing bras (until we get bored with her and we go and get someone else. Possibly Lucy Pinder – anybody got any preferences? See poll below. If in doubt, go here and select someone else.)
To get back to the point, the government is bust, the main world’s private banks have feverishly bought themselves into virtual bankruptcy by queuing for 15 years to buy each others “securitised” pigs-in-pokes, Gordon Brown is printing money….and then they all go and spend it on what? Food-police. Here’s an exerpt:-
Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand “best before” dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.
The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste.
The officials will be called “food champions”. However, they were dismissed last night as “food police” by critics who called the scheme an example of “excessive government nannying”.
WE MUST ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS ! “ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS” ! People who have purchased food are entitled to dispose of it how it pleases them. The bought food DOES NOT become State Property: it belongs to the householder.
No bureaucrats yet come round to tell you not to throw a brick at your Wireless Tele Vision, thus rendering it at least partially if not fully unserviceable, whenever Jonathan Ross come on screen: why should they come and tell you what to do with food whiche displeases you?
It’s all very sad: it’s as if the poor government buggers just can’t kick the gravy-train (sorry) habit, even when there’s really no money, as opposed to just the appearance of no money.
The “Public Services” are the country’s biggest users of “consultants”. We buggers who have to pay, and who watch all the sadness and crap, and tyranny that results, since the “consultants” have the same warped, inverted and dirigiste enemy-mind-set as their hirers, have known this for years.
It now transpires that this is being trailed. the prose is wonderfully spinnable:-
The Scottish Government is wasting up to £13m a year by not using consultants efficiently, a report has claimed.
Audit Scotland has estimated that government bodies spent about £114m on 1,200 consultancies in 2006-2007.
But it said there was no clear strategy and savings could be found if the planning, management and purchasing of consultancy services was improved.
The Scottish Government recently issued guidance on the use of consultants, saying they should be used sparingly.
Auditor General for Scotland Robert Black said consultancies can be an expensive option.
He said: “Central government bodies need to plan their use of consultants so that they use their knowledge and skills where it brings greatest value for money.
“They should gather and share consistent information on what consultancy services they buy and why.
“Bodies should consider when it is better to use their own staff, and how best to ensure public servants learn from consultants when they are hired for projects or in advisory roles.”
Of the £114m spent in 2006-07, £41m was spent by government directorates. Quangos spent £38m, which includes £35m spent by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
A further £35m was spent on consultancy services by government agencies, with Transport Scotland spending £12m.
The Audit Scotland report said: “There is a need to better plan the use of consultants.
“Use of consultants is rarely linked to wider planning about when and how to get the services needed and the best way to purchase them across the organisation as a whole.”
It said the work done by consultants was not always evaluated and suggested the government should carry out “consistent and formal evaluation”.
It recommended government bodies should take opportunities to learn from consultants and that staff should also fill key roles in projects where possible.
And if that’s just in Scotland, where the “send for the Scotch Accountants” mentality – faced with waste, and also with not enough recycled loopaper drying on the washing lines, must inevitably prevail a bit, despite rampant socialism in public life, where then England?
The point we want to bring to bear against Statist “Employees” of the State is that:-
(1) If you did not know best how to carry out the tasks which you thought you were applying to do, or had been elected to bring about, than why did you apply for the job/stand for the council/parliament(s)?
(2) Given that you then admitted, in office or power, that you had no clue, why then did you not resign your post/office? Did your CV/manifesto not state how well qualified you were to do the job/stand and represent your voters?
(3) Worse, why then did you retain flash/self-regarding buggers who must have been sacked from a corresponding job description…?…otherwise they would not now be calling themselves “consultants”, now would they – and so protecting their inept brains and arses through your front-screen? They would be DOING it profitably, and selling it, for money, in the Market (which you all so execrate) to things called “firms”.
…in working for the State, and in using other people’s money in the greasing of the palms of those who say they are your friends, while pretending it is “work”, are you not just a common bully?
From Mark Wadsworth, we now learn that quangos welcome the creation of more quangos, since each one, which is substantively a mouth coupled to an anus, can therefore contribute to the collective destruction of privately-created wealth – which is to say all of the stuff.
The issue I have here is not what to do about quangos, which is clear (close the offices, auction the leases as a sideline near car-dealers, car-boot the seized chattels, and execute the captured and SOHO-connected inmates.)
The Libertarian Issue which has escaped too much discussion is why there is a very very large supply of people willing to
(a) work for or be involved with quangos,
(b) believe that this is a noble, good and right thing to do,
(c) [willing to] have been educated/trained/influenced while students, to believe this Gramscian corruption. It’s not shit – it’s not “nonsense” – it’s not “political correctness gone mad” – NEVER NEVER EVER USE THAT PHRASE !!!!!!!! EVER! Hear me ??? – it’s pure and deliberately pre-meditated evil…..so why did they choose it, when the alternative was “good”?
(d) Worse, why did “academics” exist who could “train” them?
We need to ask why people think quangoism is good.
We need a new word for quangos, which could be used to lynch the concept. Ideas please!