Sir Ralph

You’re missing my point again. If we agree there are savings why is the government not making these first instead of taxing us? Either you think there are savings and these could made or you don’t and addressing the deficit through taxes is the only way. If the latter why aren’t they being made. I’ve given you evidence, including from Starmer and the current Conservative Party thinks the same.You don’t want to answer this simple question so I can’t help you.

I’ll assume what you have said is correct. So are there publicly available figures in relation numbers convicted and up to date figures?

Don’t talk utter tripe. That graph was to prove that your comment about a 50% uplift in private sector pay was completely incorrect. You stated that a wages were 50% more and provided no qualification and you got called out on it. The graph proved you wrong. Don’t turn your inaccuracy on me. The facts: You said (with no qualification): Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private I showed a graph comparing private and public pay and said Thats incorrect completely. Where is your evidence of this? Here is mine. Public sector wages are higher than private and they get a better deal. Great deal for the tax payer The point is that there are clearly inefficiencies. Starmer has said that productivity has reduced which has indicated that. We can reduce spending on this basis. Shown up to be wrong twice again. Are you suggesting Starmer is wrong then? It’s weird that you won’t accept this principle. I’m wondering why. If you read my email properly you would get an idea of the answers to most of your questions. It’s not difficult to understand for someone as allegedly qualified as you, which I do not believe bearing in mind your unusual stance for someone in business around spending and tax. What I’ve proposed is an approach similar to how the private sector (which you purport to work in and understand) naturally deals with inefficiency so I’m surprised you are asking so many questions about it.

I didnt comment on it. I was merely confirming that the poster was highlighting the risk of Reform supporting the removal of the triple lock when they had supported it.

.

You agreed with removing the triple lock too, as I recall. You must think Reforms idea is a good one then?

I understand how the pension works. My point is the below. This suggestion was passed by someone very senior in the public sector, hence why I took my time to respond. Even Starmer has indicated there is a lack of productivity in the public sector (although I cant see what he is doing to back up his statement, other than do the bloody opposite!).This is what I've been saying for the past couple of days, despite being called various things by ill-informed posters, including one poster in particular. To quote the article below: 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 1. Parts of the public sector are inefficient. The people in these departments all benefit from good pensions. 2. One of the issues (not the only one) with these underperforming departments are the floaters who hang on in there because the pension is good. It is common to find unmotivated people in these situations where they don’t push themselves, potentially due to a lack of pay rise potential. However the pensions are still sufficiently good for them to float along to retirement. The public sector has an issue with getting rid of these people and they are a drag on those departments and the good people in them. In my opinion the public sector doesn’t recompense good quality staff well enough and is too weak / generous to underperforming staff, which is partly because of the pension contributions. 3. By reducing the pensions, you discourage the lifers who are hanging on without producing anything. I would also make it easier to get rid of these poor quality employees. 4. The money saved from salaries of removing the poorer quality staff should be partly spent on increasing the salaries of the better quality staff. The rest would constitute savings. This would mean fewer staff but better compensated and motivated good quality staff in the context of the relevant departments. Coincidentally what I am saying aligns with @whelk comments. There are efficiencies to be driven in some departments, as acknowledged by Starmer, and what annoys me off is a lack of Government backbone to investigate this before jumping to tax rises. I also think that the above would drive better standards within the public sector and encourage those good people in those departments.

Thanks for helping me with that

Fair enough. From what I heard Wolves lost a few players during that time but it obviously didnt end well. I wouldnt mind Carrick or Robins or O'Neill but I wont be celebrating too hard if any of them are appointed. We need a poll - Keep Will Still or have GON! The issue with appointing him is that some sections will be on him if we dont start winning asap

I'm not going to die in the ditch for the guy as I dont care that much for him but he did do well to keep Bournemouth up, in my opinion. When he took over at the end of August they had lost their previous 3 matches 9-0, 4-0 and 3-0. They were a mess and he got them safe by April. If saints had got hammered like that and we had got a manger in who saved us in April I think we would have said that was reasonably successful given the circumstances. Surely it shows he has the ability to bring together a group of players low on confidence to salvage something

1. He saved b'mouth from relegation. Was fired because Chairman wanted change in direction when he took over they had just lost 9-0 to Liverpool 2. At Wolves he did really well to begin with. Then they sold £200m of players and they struggled at the start of that season and he was fired. There were mitigating circumstances 3. He helped develop a number of players at wolves including cunha, ait-nouri, etc I'm not saying he is the best manager ever, but based on track record, who is better? Carrick might be up there. We can complain but we aint exactly attractive

I work as tea boy in the estate agent....they dont let me near the houses

I didnt realise he said he is a pompey fan so thanks for educating me on that.

I'm working but will reply

I'll respond in due course but i'm working.

Why is everyone so negative about him though? Put aside the pompey thing why is he a bad appointment?

What a Wally you are.

My emails are pretty clear on what I've suggested and given examples of departments specifically for starters.

But getting rid of bad people is notoriously more difficult than the private sector. Hence why poorly perofrming people often remain on the books. In the private sector poorly performing people tend to be removed more rapidly.

Not on a person by person basis but on a larger department basis. Lets take the MOD for example. I think the civil service gets a 30% contribution pension. For the overall performance of that department some might say that as a whole they dont deserve it. I would therefore overall reduce the pension contributions to that department as it might help to discourage lifers who are there for the pension.

I agree its not as easy but I think that government needs to start looking at things like this. I actually think that th good quality people in the public sector would benefit from this. I'm all for properly rewarding good people if they have good output, regardless of sector and would be happy to pay more tax if I thought things were efficient in some of these departments

I do understand fully what that article showed and I know more senior people can be paid more in the private sector in some cases. Your email didnt say that though and you alleged this without any evidence and you called me an idiot. Dont turn it on me when you made the unsubstantiated comment.

Its not vague unless you think all sectors are performing at the levels they should be. I'm saying that historically poorly performing departments shouldnt benefit from this really good pension. This would need a full review but some parts of the civil service and various quangos are well known for being inefficient and wasting public money. I would start with those but a full review would need to be undertaken. My suggestion is the two are interlinked. I dont think that underperforming departments should beenfit from this gold plated pension. The pensions in these departments should be reduced. I have found that poorly performing people in these dpeartments often just stay there as they have a 'job for life' and want the pension at the end. There are some people that work inthese departments who are good. Their pensions would be reduced naturally as the pensions within the same departments are the same. I would compensate the better performing people in those departments with better salaries to reduce the risk of them leaving. This would be compensated by getting rid of the poorly performing people.

I agree - dont call me an idiot though. He has this mightier than thou attitude when he sometimes talks rubbish.

I think these are all fair points. The 50% difference is absolute BS as a general position though