Zed to Public Service: "It's not just us that hates you"

Robertson said :

Deref said :

Adopting an 19th century affectation is no basis for spelling. I’m a stickler for spelling but, in this case, “program” has more validity.
.

“Programme” is English spelling.
“Program” is an archaic form preserved in a different dialect based on a dictionary that, although it did get cleaned up a lot, remains riddled with errors to this day and whose nefarious effects we should resist for as long as possible.

Program is the way 80% or more of people in Australia spell it. Its how every TV channel and radio channel spell it. Like it or not, its now the common and accepted way to spell it. ‘Programme’ is seen as archaic and old fashioned, a bit hoity toity.

However, those who are in the APS will be aware that the Libs style guide requires ‘programme’. Which is how it was under Howard but not under the ALP (who didnt care)

Deref said :

So does “aluminum”, btw.

The word you’re thinking of is alumium.
That is the orininal word, aluminium has been the correct word for over 200 hundred years.
Webster’s Dictionary first used the incorrect word many years after the scientific community had settled on aluminium, it was American journos who spread the wrong word to the people.

Deref said :

Adopting an 19th century affectation is no basis for spelling. I’m a stickler for spelling but, in this case, “program” has more validity.
.

“Programme” is English spelling.
“Program” is an archaic form preserved in a different dialect based on a dictionary that, although it did get cleaned up a lot, remains riddled with errors to this day and whose nefarious effects we should resist for as long as possible.

BimboGeek said :

dtc said :

… to run the programs (or ‘programmes’ if you are a Liberal)

It’s “programme” if you know how to spell in English. “Program” is the original spelling and still in use in North America but the Oxford English Dictionary uses the French spelling.

Adopting an 19th century affectation is no basis for spelling. I’m a stickler for spelling but, in this case, “program” has more validity.

So does “aluminum”, btw.

dtc said :

… to run the programs (or ‘programmes’ if you are a Liberal)

It’s “programme” if you know how to spell in English. “Program” is the original spelling and still in use in North America but the Oxford English Dictionary uses the French spelling.

I wonder how many times the Liberals have been told that, due to budget cuts, there arent the resources to run the programs (or ‘programmes’ if you are a Liberal) that the Libs want to run; and have now siezed on that to stop the reduction. I mean, the Libs through ‘natural attrition’ must have assumed there would be no redundancies, so to now say they can’t cut people due to there being not budget for something that was (apparently) never going to happen anyway is a bit strange.

Yep. The PS is a tailor-made whipping boy for politicians of any flavour. Everyone around Australia hates them, knows that they’re underworked, overpaid fat cats who live in a luxurious city where the streets are paved with gold thanks to rivers of taxpayers’ hard-earned, and the more the politicians – Laboral or Liber – sack, the better.

Then, of course, they whine like stuck pigs when anyone suggests reducing subsidies to [insert name of industry here] because people will lose their jobs.

thebrownstreak69 said :

mossrocket said :

We didn’t need convincing – it was obvious to Public Servants that it’s ben happening for the last couple of years, and would have continued had Labor won.

The ridiculous use of the blunt knife of efficiency dividends was used to sack hundreds if not thousands of staff while the previous Government dodged any political flack for their mismanagement of the APS and the budget as a whole.

I’m not saying the ‘natural attrition’ proposal is better – but at least it’s out in the open…

+1.

Labor had been cutting for several years when they lost government. At least 8000 positions had already gone. Given the current budget pressures, they were committed to continuing down the same path.

+1 more

It has been clear that the APS was going to go thru a period of downsizing for a long time. EDs and the like have been removing staff for a number of years. At least the Coalition was clear about what it was going to do, unlike the Labor Party.

Makes all the current wailing from Labor-ites seem a tad fake though.

mossrocket said :

We didn’t need convincing – it was obvious to Public Servants that it’s ben happening for the last couple of years, and would have continued had Labor won.

The ridiculous use of the blunt knife of efficiency dividends was used to sack hundreds if not thousands of staff while the previous Government dodged any political flack for their mismanagement of the APS and the budget as a whole.

I’m not saying the ‘natural attrition’ proposal is better – but at least it’s out in the open…

+1.

Labor had been cutting for several years when they lost government. At least 8000 positions had already gone. Given the current budget pressures, they were committed to continuing down the same path.

We didn’t need convincing – it was obvious to Public Servants that it’s ben happening for the last couple of years, and would have continued had Labor won.

The ridiculous use of the blunt knife of efficiency dividends was used to sack hundreds if not thousands of staff while the previous Government dodged any political flack for their mismanagement of the APS and the budget as a whole.

I’m not saying the ‘natural attrition’ proposal is better – but at least it’s out in the open…