Farmer Saint

I thought you were using their removal to pay private sector type wages? So a 20-50% increase.

But cutting pensions is not making cuts to current spending, you know that don't you? It will only apply to new starters so your savings are in 20 to 30 years or so.

.

Let me give you an example @Sir Ralph. If you wanted to get rid of 20% of staff, these are the approximate numbers: The average salary in the civil service is £34k. As you've said the problem is those waiting out their pensions, so we'll take the average length of service as what, 10 years? In the civil service you get a months pay per year of service. So that is £28k per person. There are 520k people in the civil service, so you are looking at making 104k people redundant. Therefore, just the payout for redundancy is £28bn, and you are increasing the dole queue by 104k people. Those people won't lose their pensions up to that point BTW. This will increase our JSA bill by £10m per week, and as they are older they are more unlikely to get new roles. You are then planning to give that money in pay increases to those currently in role, or just to new starters? You won't be able to change current workers pensions without substantial payoffs, and not many people would take those payoffs - they'd be stupid to. But you are massively increasing the pensions they get when they retire as you've increased their wages. New starters will be fine, but don't forget you've made 100k roles redundant, so it will be very difficult to bring new starters in unless you are envisaging full organisational restructures?

It would be silly to put a figure on it, and as you say you're clearly not an expert on it, but you've also said that they should have been able to do an analysis on the whole civil service within 18 months, so how did you come up with that number? But if you can't put a number on how many people you need to remove, how do you know how much you're going to save? Is it £300m, is it £30bn? How many people will be out of work due to this? The job market is weak, so howuch is that going to cost in JSA. Even before that, how much is it going to cost in redundancy pay considering you want to get rid of the inefficient lifers that are waiting for retirement?

You have literally offered nothing with those answers. Not a thing. If you don't have an idea on percentages, numbers, departments etc, how much money are you planning to save to "balance" the budget? 10-20% of staff? More? Less?

I don't, and I bet Whelk doesn't too. Answer my questions please.

I have said that over and over and over. You know that as I have directly responded to you multiple times about it. I have also said it's very a long-winded and expensive thing to do. But we are on common ground so I look forward to your answers.

Who's calling him a genius?

Thank God you've got these sort of contacts - I assume it must be Spors himself to know this? Bullshit.

As long as you've contributed enough years via NI.

You know those things don't happen, don't you? I get that we're being told this on dodgy Facebook groups, but don't get sucked into that shit. Pensioners in general shouldn't have to rely on the state pension, especially the boomers going into it at the moment. Both my parents and my in-laws both donate ALL their state pensions and heating allowance to local charities. They weren't rich, didn't have amazing jobs, but made so much from just being born and able to purchase property at the right time they'd prefer that the money goes to people that need it more. I'm not saying everyone should, but again, there's so much greed around.

I'm assuming our resident big sky thinker isn't prepared to answer my questions on his foolproof civil service reform. Just for clarification, here are my questions: 1. What percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services (IE that you'd get rid of)? 2. Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)? 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? 4. Would you reduce pensions for people already in role, or would it just be for new starters? 5. If everyone currently in role, how would you bridge that gap?

He was unsighted for yesterday's goal wasn't he? Not sure yesterday's goal is the gotcha a lot of people seem to think it is.

You will not realise those efficiency savings immediately anyway, you know that, so we will still need tax rises in the interim. And I thought you were using the saved money to up the wages of workers, so you're not saving anything anyway? In relation to answering your question, you've not even asked me a question, unless it is the same one I answered the other day?

Email? You don't even understand online communication. Have never said there weren't inefficiencies, and where in my reply did I say that? I have just asked a number of questions into how you would enable something like that considering the current landscape? The rest of your post is lies and supposition. It's fine, you think that role to role public sector pay is higher than private - it's not and private is substantially higher, even the example I gave yesterday showed that (which was the first one I could find). Tbh if we agreed on things I would be worried, as you are consistently wrong. I don't care if you believe me or not.

No, you said that the public sector paid more than the private sector, and then posted an average wage graph to prove it, with the caption "Here is mine. Public sector wages are higher than private and they get a better deal. Great deal for the tax payer". You were just showing, again, that you just don't know what you're talking about. In relation to the above points, what percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services (IE that you'd get rid of)? Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)? 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? Would you reduce pensions for people already in role, or would it just be for new starters? How would you bridge that gap?

No, you said that the public sector paid more than the private sector, and then posted an average wage graph to prove it, with the caption "Here is mine. Public sector wages are higher than private and they get a better deal. Great deal for the tax payer". You were just showing, again, that you just don't know what you're talking about. In relation to the above points, what percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services? Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)?

Well yes, as I put in my policies it's something I'd remove - it's not a new idea though? I was saying that because @Saint Fan CaM was saying he though Labour was against pensioners and so he was considering voting Reform - this is the most anti-pensioner policy there is.

I'd prefer Carrick to tbh. I put O'Neil at Gerrard's level, like a Poyet - a former footballer who should never have got a job.

I reject him because he's a shit manager who plays shitter football. RM is a far better Manager with far more exciting and expansive football, and I don't want him back.

Be careful... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15258175/Reforms-Richard-Tice-warns-triple-lock-unsustainable.html Unlikely to tax the wealthy either.

And his football is utterly monotonous.

Should move to the public sector, you'll get paid more and a better pension.

Those flats don't rent themselves out...