Category Archives: Provincial

Irony, Paradox and Greek Tragedy.

Irony, Paradox and Greek Tragedy.

The front page of Saturday September 6/08’s News overflowed with irony and paradox flavoured by classical Greek tragedy.

On one side of the page we read of the Salvation Army and about government pouring money into a program to help people get off the streets. “Miller said he was put in contact with Simpson through the Salvation Army.”

On the other side of the page you read about government putting people out onto the streets. Cory Frostad stating: “The city bylaw is going to put us on the streets. The bylaw has no right to do such a thing.”

In this case it is a conflict between municipal and provincial government actions. But this kind of conflict and counterproductive behaviour happens often and seemingly easily as a result of policies and actions by a single level of government.

Government’s refuse to listen to something they do not want to hear; like an ostrich they bury their head it the sand – and then are surprised when programs and actions do not work or result in negative consequences.

When the City began formulating its recovery house policy it was pointed out that before closing down “recovery houses” they needed to put in place affordable housing or they would be throwing people onto the streets homeless.

Two years later the City has failed to increase the stock of affordable housing in the housing market and in pursuing its recovery house policy and closing down this type of affordable housing, the City is throwing people onto the streets.

When the province announced its 24/7 shelter plan it was pointed out that without providing affordable housing for people to move into the shelters were going to become flophouses because there was nowhere for the people to move out of the shelters to.

Even with the “cheat” of an extra rent subsidy to those using the shelter plan (an extra rent subsidy denied to those who are not/were not a client of the shelter plan) the 0% vacancy rate for places under $1,000 on the downtown eastside means there no housing clients can afford. And while the cost of housing in Abbotsford has not yet reached the same $1,000 level, there is not nearly enough affordable housing to meet the demand.

In both cases you would think that the need for and the importance of affordable housing in getting people off the streets would be obvious – apparently not to government.

As long as governments, and other agencies, fail to think through the consequences of their actions and fail to focus on what the goal is (housing people) and what is needed to achieve that goal (affordable housing) actions by these groups will continue to have more in common with a Three Stooges movie than with a successfully executed strategic plan.

The Result being an occasional newspaper front page that overflows with irony and paradox, while the homeless, mentally ill, addicted and poor continue to suffer the suffer the tragedy of homelessness.

Torn

As I drive along listening to my car radio I repeatedly hear the provincial government’s radio advertisement to inform people of the rent subsidy program for families whose income falls under $35,000.

Listening to these ads I am torn.

I am glad for those the Province chooses to help and that the government has recognized at least this limited acknowledgement of the cost of housing and the level of need/poverty in British Columbia.

Unfortunately the government continues burying its head in denial of the reality of the higher levels of poverty and need their ideology denies.

Worse is that this denial appears to be driving the few provincial Liberals who have removed their ideological blinders and opened their minds and eyes, enabling them to see the desperate levels of need, to leave the government in frustration over party leaderships blind insistence on continuing to deny a Reality they have no wish to see.

Perhaps Mr. Campbell could explain what makes some BC residents worthy of his governments aid and others unworthy of help in recovering their lives?

The Rai$e$ to $enior BC bureaucrat$.

It isn’t that the government sought to conceal the obscene pay raises for senior bureaucrats by burying the announcement in not just a Friday press release, but a Friday press release obscured by the opening of the Beijing Olympics that is troubling. Rather it is that the government is so out of touch with the reality of the lives and situations of the vast majority of citizens in the province, that the government thought they could slip past taxpayers a 43% $105,000 increase without it being noticed and the government called to task for the extravagance of the raises.


The government’s rationalization of these inexcusable wages is that they need to pay these ridiculous wage levels to keep or attract the kind of people they need.

To begin evaluating this rationalization of the need for raises that exceed the yearly income of the vast majority of the taxpayers out of whose pockets these raises will be paid, I consulted a dictionary for the definition of bureaucrat and bureaucracy.

Bureaucrat: an official of a bureaucracy (administration characterized by many bureaus, administrators, petty officials, excessive red tape and routine); an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.; an official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure;

What is it about these individuals that cause them to be so valued by their political masters? What attributes are required by these positions and the people who fill them?

Obviously one needs, at least on paper, to be qualified to hold a position at this level of government service.

Just as obviously one needs to be able to navigate and manipulate the bureaucracy if one is to be able to cause the bureaucracy to carry out their political masters wishes.

An abundant number of people are capable of meeting these requirements. There must be further requirements that drastically reduce the pool of candidates to the select few numbers the government cited as the reason it is necessary to pay and to offer these exorbitant wage levels.

So what attributes do politicians require in the people filling these positions that so limit the talent pool? What sort of factor would be of importance to a politician for an employee in these positions?

Non-competence. It is not that politicians, government and bureaucracy require incompetence. Rather the need is simply for candidates to not be competent.

Competent people tend to focus on accomplishing what the stated purpose or goal is, rather than on pursuing policies that either would not accomplish or are contrary to accomplishing the stated purpose or goal. Within the labyrinth bureaucracy of government competent people would remain hidden until their actions in successfully accomplishing the stated purpose or goal attracted media or other unwanted attention.

Faced with a demonstrated method of actually accomplishing the stated goals the politicians would be forced to abandon their policies in favour of policies that work, even if not in agreement with their ideological world view. Obviously this would be an intolerable position for politicians to find themselves in.

Thus it is that politicians want to avoid having competent people working for government. This desire is strengthened by the fact that competent people tend to drive out incompetence and inspire people around them to aspire to competence. While frustration with the bureaucratic barriers to accomplishing goals would drive many competent people out of government service, a stubborn few would remain until they succeeded.

Then, like a plague, competent people would infect the bureaucracy with competence giving rise to a government service that accomplishes the stated purpose or goals irrespective or in spite of politicians and their ideological faith.

This desire to not have any competent people in government service limits the number of qualified people from which to draw in filling high level positions.

Finally, what is it politicians want to use the government bureaucracy to accomplish? The implementation of the policies derived from and/or dictated by their political ideology – no matter how far this ideological world view is from reality and without consideration of the actual effect these actions will have on citizens who live in the real world.

This dichotomy between the ideological world view and the real world, between what is claimed the outcome will be and the real effect of the policy choices, between the way the politicians choose to view and/or interpret the outcomes of their actions and the actual consequences the outcomes have upon people give rise to a built in conflict between supporting the politicians and their ideological tainted perceptions versus delivering to the politicians the facts that may force politicians to see things as they truly are.

Politicians want bureaucrats that do as they are told and who don’t confuse their political masters by introducing reality into their ideological fantasy world. This need is what has given rise to the political “science” idea of the need for a civil service that unthinkingly, obliviously carries out the dictates of whomever is their political masters, whatever their ideological world view.

The requirement for mindless obedience, providing spin control and ignoring what the actual consequences will be or are serves to narrow the field of possible candidates for these positions down to a select few.

For politicians seeking to preserve their ideology and ideological world views rather than face the real world and deal with the issues and problems in a thoughtful, rational and effective manner this type of bureaucrat is a necessity and worth every penny the politicians must pay as wages.

The CONCLUSION this analysis leads one to draw is that BC’s Liberal government (and by inference all levels of government across Canada) is correct. Given the very limited pool of people who meet the politician’s requirements and that government bodies all across Canada are competing for people from this very limited pool, high and extreme levels of wages are required to hire these bureaucrats.

The QUESTION we should really be asking is whether these are the types of bureaucrats and politicians we want in and running our government(s). Or should we be looking for competence, integrity and residence in the real world from our politicians and bureaucrats.