Sir Ralph

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

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