Sir Ralph

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

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.