Sir Ralph

In terms of this report, I dont necessarily believe that all of the savings can be made. I used the report as evidence that a well known think-tank had overlap with some of the things I suggested. I mentioned a number of possible saving areas, in addition to public sector savings. One of these being welfare. The parts of the report which were most relevant to what I mentioned are below: 1. Welfare - this has already been well publicised but I particularly agree with the comments around cutting disability benefits as this is often abused. The Government's idea around cutting benefits for people who dont accept job offers is also a good one, in my opinion. 2. NHS - from speaking to family members and friends in the NHS, the management hierarchy is heavy in their opinion. I dont work in it so I can't comment but a streamlining of management in these areas would, based on their feedback, help to make decision making simpler without impacting operational ability and reduce the wage bill. The Government should provide tax breaks for those with private health care to encourage take up which could, on balance, reduce the burden on the public purse, which could be another overall saving. Whilst this wouldnt be a saving as such, I would also charge for appointments as I believe that the system is abused by people. Yes, there will be an impact on some but I fear that unless the system is changed to discourage abuse then the NHS will be in trouble financially (more so than it is now) without a change. This would generate additional income and reduce pressure. 3. Civil Service - in some instances, cuts will not be possible particularly for frontline staff. However, there is again the possibility to remove management and administration type roles in some departments, which I have experience of people saying are inefficient having worked for or worked with them. Their complaint is that the view tends to be that an output is writing a report but that there is little action in terms of real results achieved. This includes the MoD and the Home Office. As I said before, a review of all departments should be undertaken and where inefficiencies are found, redundancies made and some of the savings used to increase pay for good staff, alongside pension changes. 4. Quangos - my experience of working with some quangos is that they are often unhelpful, overly bureaucratic and hinder business. The roles of some of these quangos could be reduced or the quangos removed altogether to make savings. I would particularly focus on environmental quangos, some unsuccessful transport quangos and the HSE. If I have experience of some of the quangos I might encounter being inefficient, I'm sure there are many more. What i dont understand is that we have a Conservative think tank and a Labour PM both saying that there are inefficiencies and savings can be made. Even if I'm wrong on my suggestions as I am not a specialist, doesnt the fact they both say this not matter?

I said I would give you the breakdown which I will. I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to confirm you will subsequently respond with evidence as to why Starmer is wrong…..unless you have no evidence? You seem to be avoiding this hiding behind “just answer my questions”. I appreciate evidence can be problematic in some circumstances but it’s normally helpful in getting to the truth

If I am going to spend time giving my response will you share your evidence as to why Starmer is wrong? I find that I always answer questions and nobody gives a response with any evidence. If you just want to get a reply from me to just critique it, that’s boring, if you aren’t going to answer questions about your own position

Ok that’s fine. I agree they are two independent views, albeit they can both be correct. Why don’t you agree with him? I’m assuming the figures he quoted were provided by government officials. What evidence do you have he is wrong on these figures?

Yes I’ve read the relevant sections I was interested in. I also mentioned quangos. It will take a bit of time to summarise . Can I ask why you need this to confirm whether you agree with Starmer or not? The two are independent views.

I’ll give them to you. I’m not the only one claiming inefficiency. Starmer said the same (as posted before). Is he wrong too? What are your thoughts on this? @egg what do you think about this? Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector has dropped by 2.6% compared to a year ago, and is 8.5% lower than just before the Covid-19 pandemic. He says this “wouldn’t be accepted in any other sector or walk of life” and that he will not subsidise lower productivity "with ever-rising taxes on the British people”. https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/starmer-too-many-civil-servants-comfortable-in-tepid-bath-of-managed-decline

So no answer again. What parts of it are incorrect and why? You even asked me to point you to the report parts which I did and I get this non response. Informed views and evidence are ignored to maintain a partisan approach. The background of the authors is here so they are clearly experienced and have worked in government. If a discussion ends with people ignoring the views (with no contrary)of more informed people than them, then that says a lot

You’re ignoring me because you can’t actually back up your stance anymore. You’re trying to slip out of it. Which questions did I not answer? This is the frustrating thing with this forum. Evidence or people with much more informed judgements than us are just ignored by the band of brothers (as evidenced again earlier today) so what is the point?

It’s funny watching you lot not respond to my questions now. I’ll copy and paste the question I put to @egg just now. You’ve made some general comment about the report with nothing specific and no evidence to back your position. So please explain? I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me? 1. You, me and Starmer and various think tanks believe spending savings can be made 2. I made some suggestions for savings that people disputed or challenged due to a lack of evidence. I’m not a civil servant so can’t provide full facts and figures. Neither can any of the posters on here. Coincidentally the specialist report I found does back up my suggestions with figures. So good evidence 3. There are no good reasons that I can see not to make some spending cuts to minimise tax rises. Correct me if I’m wrong but the thing you mentioned was it would cost money to get rid of people but actually over a relatively short period of time savings would be made. Also keeping people on artificially is a bad approach in general business terms

You have to be taking the Michael. I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me? 1. You, me and Starmer and various think tanks believe spending savings can be made 2. I made some suggestions for savings that people disputed or challenged due to a lack of evidence. I’m not a civil servant so can’t provide full facts and figures. Neither can any of the posters on here. Coincidentally the specialist report I found does back up my suggestions with figures. So good evidence 3. There are no good reasons that I can see not to make some spending cuts to minimise tax rises. Correct me if I’m wrong but the thing you mentioned was it would cost money to get rid of people but actually over a relatively short period of time savings would be made. Also keeping people on artificially is a bad approach in general business terms

Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are a good start. Also no need to be sarcastic - I’ve been polite to you

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf Interesting quote at the start

You can promote the good ones into new pay grades if required. To summarise this situation: 1. You, me and Starmer and various think tanks believe spending savings can be made 2. I made some suggestions for savings that people disputed or challenged due to a lack of evidence. I’m not a civil servant so can’t provide full facts and figures. Neither can any of the posters on here. Coincidentally the specialist report I found does back up my suggestions with figures. So good evidence 3. There are no good reasons that I can see not to make some spending cuts to minimise tax rises. Correct me if I’m wrong but the thing you mentioned was it would cost money to get rid of people but actually over a relatively short period of time savings would be made. Also keeping people on artificially is a bad approach in general business terms

Incorrect. I said that you could use some of the savings to better remunerate the better quality people. The rest would be savings.

Have a gander at the report written by specialists if you want to see what they have said about some of the things that I mentioned. Any thoughts about it? Are the suggestions made not possible?

Without getting into a blow by blow on this - do you suggest we leave these people in roles being inefficient? The savings over next next 4 years of removing those people will be higher than the cost of removing them. Using your figures that is evident

Well we agree both then that neither you nor I can put a figure on the savings but there are savings to be made. I said that you could review the key departments within 18 months, that’s not the whole civil service necessarily but regardless the speed of review is down to the level of resource you want to put into it. If you prioritise spending cuts over taxes you would put resources into the assessment. Thats what I believe government should be doing. Keeping people in work artificially because you are worried about the consequences you have mentioned I would suggest is not something you support? Neither you nor I are experts in the field so I looked up a report by the Policy exchange https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf Look at what they say in section 4.6 - basically the same suggestion and reasoning in relation to public sector pensions

Nobody can put a figure on it until it’s reviewed by the government. That would be stupid for me to suggest a figure. There obviously are efficiency savings to be made (as you have agreed this) so where are they? This has been my main point all along - why not make efficiency savings to minimise tax rises? It’s a principle point about the governments approach to the budget

I have identified areas departments where savings could potentially be made. There are a number of departments which are know to be more inefficient. To identify the precise level of saving you need a review of those departments. I obviously can’t do that from my living room, neither can you say they are efficient for the same reason. My point is that there are efficiencies savings to be made (posters on here and Starmer has admitted to this) but that this hasn’t been targeted to minimise tax increases. That was my point all along and I fail to see that it’s controversial

So yes it is possible but it hasn’t been done. I disagree that in 1.5 years you couldn’t have done a review of key departments to identify inefficiency. I agree that would be more difficult across the whole public sector. in terms of responses 1. What percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services (IE that you'd get rid of)? I’m not sure as a percentage but a serious review of departments that are known to be inefficient (eg civil service and some quangos) is a good start. 2. Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)? I think you start with ones know to be inefficient and spend your time on those. I agree it’s a big job to review all departments and may not be worthwhile for some in terms of savings. Start with easier wins 3. If you're removing that percentage, do you expect the remaining people to pick up the slack or do you think you'll need to bring in agency workers to flex resourcing? If departments have inefficiencies they are by their very nature “flabby”. I expect the existing staff (the better quality ones) to pick this up but would remunerate them accordingly 4. Would you reduce pensions for people already in role, or would it just be for new starters? I think that would dependent on the department review. If pensions for those departments are high and they are quite inefficient then a pension alteration maybe needed across those those departments for all staff. With good quality staff getting increased remuneration- this will minimise the impact on them. 5. If everyone currently in role, how would you bridge that gap? Sorry don’t understand

Do you disagree with Starmer when he said this: Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector hasdropped by 2.6% compared to a year ago, and is 8.5% lower than just before the Covid-19 pandemic. He says this “wouldn’t be accepted in any other sector or walk of life” and that he will not subsidise lower productivity "with ever-rising taxes on the British people”. https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/starmer-too-many-civil-servants-comfortable-in-tepid-bath-of-managed-decline

I’ll make some suggestions on points that I maybe able to respond to, although, like you say, I don’t have all the information to make a precise judgement. The key point though is, do you believe that, like Starmer, there is inefficiency in some public sector departments that needs to be addressed which could result in savings? Without having common ground on that, responding to the above is pointless.

Can you please explain to me what this article evidences?

Can you share with me the MoJs figures on proportionate offences by nationality? im trying to get to the point of what you’re saying. You mentioned that the stats in the graph I showed aren’t completely correct / up to date. However, they are evidentially based and show a correlation. In lieu of you questioning them is there any other evidence?

Don’t quote facts, that’s not fair