Sir Ralph

I run a pub. Price of employment goes up generally but income remains the same. To maintain a profit margin that I need to keep running I have to reduce the employment budget. It’s really simple and lots of people saw it coming

No I didn’t to be fair, maybe I should, but I could see the impact their policies were going to have moving forward. This isn’t a partisan position as I don’t care who gets the economy moving. Why do you think our unemployment rate is increasing then compared to eu countries? I understand that economies are complex but we experience similar circumstances to the eu so not an unfair question to sender

The thing is I would explain to you why increasing minimum salaries has resulted in job losses but I don’t think you want to understand/ listen so there is no point. You just emoji everyone’s post you disagree with

Exactly it’s about changes in unemployment rates since the government has come in. Since the government came in unemployment in the uk has increased and decreased in the eu. Why? If we had a 0% employment rate before the government came in and now a 2.5% rate it would still be low but they would have done a bad job on the issue

Or more likely increasing the minimum wage and increasing employers NI caused this. Why has the EU employment rate decreased since last year but ours has increased?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxrp7znkdlo This is 100% unrelated to government policy.

You mean people who disagree with you

There is if they aren’t sufficiently accountable to put in a good shift each day. Why are the majority of businesses now making people come into the office for the majority of the week? They know it’s required to improve learning from colleagues and to maximise output. The public sector must not be any different. If anything it’s more accountable as it is using the public purse.

I actually think they should. If you think it’s too much to go into the office 3-4 days a week minimum then you aren’t sufficiently committed to your job anyway

Can you please tell me why Starmer is wrong and there are no savings to be had? @egg still hasn’t responded to this either. Remember evidence is important.

I agree they are conservative in nature. Does that mean all their ideas are wrong though? As I continue to mention, Starmer also says that there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed - is he also wrong? So a right leaning think tank and a Labour PM are saying the same thing in principle. What does this tell you? I will accept paying more taxes, if absolutely necessary, but dont believe its fair to do so when efficiencies can be made first.

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.