Sir Ralph

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

Youre an idiot. This is the best evidence I can find to explain the comparison. I have evidence. I know this isnt like for like but my point is that the 50% figure is BS. I quote your point to evidence what you said: Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. Where is your evidence for the 50% difference? If I'm such an idiot you will find this easily.

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

.

I think there are some sectors that deserve this type of pension to compensate for their lower pay. Lets take nurses for example. Their salaries are bad bearing in mind they need to go to uni, pay for that and have unsociable hours. I wouldnt change things for them. My opinion / experience is there are other sectors where there are a higher proportion of people who arent performing and its a 'job for life' mentality. In these sectors I dont think these people deserve this quality of pension. However, there are clearly people in the sectors who are good so I would reduce pensions overall but increase salary budgets to compensate the good people in these sectors. This would target those who benefit from good pension but are in poorly performing sectors (basically the bad people in poorly performing sectors) whilst compensating the good people in those poorly performing sectors to avoid them leaving.

@tdmickey3 what’s funny about this post? I know you have a vested interest in this matter but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong? When I suggested it was ok for people to move abroad to avoid tax I was called greedy what it appears is the band of brothers all work for the public sector and therefore want to protect their own position- by their own standards that’s greedy too. My point is both suggestions are stupid (and I don’t think I would level the accusation of greed at you) but it’s hypocritical

I understand that to some degree public sector pensions might need to be higher than private sector but the level of payments and guarantees on this are ridiculous. What you’re saying is that they are so good you would prefer to have this than a decent salary hike which suggests that the overall package could be better than the typical private sector approach. Doesn’t that make them dangerous though if future governments have to pay them. That sounds like the kick it down the road mentally that they love and “give em what they want” because it doesn’t impact the government at the time? From my experience there are some parts of the public sector that deserve this and others where this should be reviewed. For the good people in some sectors I would compensate by increasing pay in lieu of any reduction in pension. There are some potential savings for the goverment to avoid us paying more tax right there.

Why would you be underwhelmed by him out of interest? Initially I was but then, whilst he isn’t exactly a sexy appointment on the face of it, I think he’s actually been quite successful.

I actually think his record is pretty good. He saved Bournemouth from relegation and only got sacked in the summer after the chairman wanted a change in dorection. At Wolves he did really well and then got sacked after a bad start to the season but Wolves had to sell £200m of players so they had a much weakened team. Their board must rate him as they appear to have wanted him back. Of the options available I think he is the best one. I wonder whether his u-turn from re-joining Wolves is cause Saints have approached him

The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

It’s the only way you can get into this Government. It’s a minimum requirement.

I agree for the good ones so I think you could pay good people more and make it easier to get rid of the shite ones. It’s notoriously difficult to sack bad people in the public sector.

MaCarthy Jelert Wood THB Wellington Romeu Jander (Charles when fit) Scienza Robinson Fellows Armstrong (Stewart when fit) Downs (tea boy)

Get in. Hopefully plays against Wednesday but defo Charlton.

My experience of stress in parts of the public sector and the private sector have different threshold levels (not for all I hasten to add, but many). This from someone who has worked in both. The pay does reflect this in parts of the private sector to add balance. I have known a few people in the public sector that are underpaid for their output and I would pay them more if I was in charge, but there are some sectors where the levels of output wouldnt be acceptable in most private sector environments. In my own experience, the former is less common than the latter.

but increasing taxes wont? You are referring to inflation, something which we have the highest of all the G7 countries in 2025 and predicted for2026. Say hello to your Labour Government.

Fair enough I didn’t say you didn’t. It’s helpful to understand where people are coming from in these discussions.

I am - thats one thing you are right about.

So yes. Thats why you dont want to discuss it. Your view on all of these matters about reducing spending is out of self interest then.😂

That isnt a reason for not challenging it. Do you have a public sector pension?

To be fair, I think pensions were historically excessive but have been reduced, by how much I'm not sure.

Just a quick point - what does your graph show after 2019 and does it go pre-2010?