The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

My question is why have spending cuts and spending reviews not and being undertaken?

Seriously? Do you genuinely know no-one in the public sector? You really are so uninformed it makes discussion tedious. 
What do you think Councils did to react to the reduction in funding, illustrated below? No reviews whatsoever, no cuts? You are beyond belief 

I took Councils as an example. Yes, there is still no doubt loads of wasters and inefficiencies still there

 

 

[badgerx16]

Of course cuts in public finances are possible, it's the consequential cuts in services that make it difficult.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Seriously? Do you genuinely know no-one in the public sector? You really are so uninformed it makes discussion tedious. 
What do you think Councils did to react to the reduction in funding, illustrated below? No reviews whatsoever, no cuts? You are beyond belief 

I took Councils as an example. Yes, there is still no doubt loads of wasters and inefficiencies still there

 

 

I know people that work for local authorities and the impact on their budgets. Pre 2008 they were bloated so austerity did address some of this. I agree that now they are more stretched. I think there maybe some efficiencies in some local authorities but I think I agreed before that this would be relatively limited.

LA spending is about 20% - what about the rest of government spending? Are there cuts to be made there?
 

 

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

It’s a really easy question to respond to. If you were unclear my answer is b). Maybe I am wrong and maybe I’m right but I’m clear on my opinion.

In the style of Voltaire, " You are wrong, but I will defend to the death your right to be wrong".

[Sir Ralph]

38 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course cuts in public finances are possible, it's the consequential cuts in services that make it difficult.

I agree to some degree. But the question is then, are there inefficiencies that can be addressed which have much less consequential impacts and could be tackled instead of more and more tax rises (to at least minimise those tax rises)? 
 

My issue is where is the governments plan for this to achieve a balanced budget?

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Seriously? Do you genuinely know no-one in the public sector? You really are so uninformed it makes discussion tedious. 
What do you think Councils did to react to the reduction in funding, illustrated below? No reviews whatsoever, no cuts? You are beyond belief 

I took Councils as an example. Yes, there is still no doubt loads of wasters and inefficiencies still there

 

 

Mate, don't bother, he's come up with an odd question thinking we are in the inner-circle in relation to Government and public service efficiency. As soon as we say we don't know, he says that due to our response there is an assumption that the Government haven't looked at it, as if we would know 😂

This is the problem with estate agents, uneducated con-men, like his hero Farage.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

In the style of Voltaire, " You are wrong, but I will defend to the death your right to be wrong".

I was trying to be fair. I don’t think I am wrong but I was trying to get a half reasonable response.

[Sir Ralph]

33 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Mate, don't bother, he's come up with an odd question thinking we are in the inner-circle in relation to Government and public service efficiency. As soon as we say we don't know, he says that due to our response there is an assumption that the Government haven't looked at it, as if we would know 😂

This is the problem with estate agents, uneducated con-men, like his hero Farage.

 

I think people don’t want to answer it and admit that there are probably areas in a balanced budget where cuts can be made as it’s an admittance that this government is taxing people to levels it doesn’t need to.  There isn’t an assumption they haven’t looked at it. It’s that they don’t want to make the cuts.

I also gave @Farmer Saint areas where spending cuts could be considered and you said you wanted more and more details “thinking we are in the inner-circle in relation to Government and public service efficiency”. Not hypocritical at all.

What I’m saying is in the press. I know to some poster on this forum it make feel like some far right view but it really ain’t!

Actually just found this which is a very recent public survey on the matter from you gov. I suspect the opinion of the posters on here though is much better informed than the people who responded to this poll! They will all be estate agents, uneducated con-men, like their hero Farage.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/11/04/28b4a/1

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[iansums]

The civil service has increased significantly since pre-COVID, should be room for cuts there. Insist on return to office working, this would also benefit the economy. The government are already looking into the Motability scheme, fair play. Massive increase in people choosing not not to work.

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

The civil service has increased significantly since pre-COVID, should be room for cuts there. Insist on return to office working, this would also benefit the economy. The government are already looking into the Motability scheme, fair play. Massive increase in people choosing not not to work.

I thought that switching a proportion of staff to home working enabled a cut in office space and estates management costs.

[badgerx16]

46 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree to some degree. But the question is then, are there inefficiencies that can be addressed which have much less consequential impacts and could be tackled instead of more and more tax rises (to at least minimise those tax rises)? 
 

My issue is where is the governments plan for this to achieve a balanced budget?

Give us a number; what percentage of LA spending do you seriously believe can be accounted for as 'inefficiencies'?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I thought that switching a proportion of staff to home working enabled a cut in office space and estates management costs.

How many 'estates' have been closed, reduced or mothballed within the civil service?

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How many 'estates' have been closed, reduced or mothballed within the civil service?

I have no idea, why don't you Google it ?

 

Never mind, I did it for you. 

From the Government website ; "As part of our Plan for Change to re-wire the state, 11 central London offices will be closed including one of the largest Whitehall buildings - saving £94m per year - as the number of roles in the capital is reduced by 12,000."

Edited 5 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Give us a number; what percentage of LA spending do you seriously believe can be accounted for as 'inefficiencies'?

Hang on I will get my LA specific accounting review for 24/25. As I agreed the spending savings for LAs maybe less. I have had to work with some LAs in recent years and, on reflection, my issue might be to be with the quality of some of the people there and the 'value' for money we get from some of them, particularly some senior people. So, to reiterate, I agree that the savings in this respect maybe smaller.

Also LA's accounts for 20% of government spending. What about savings in the remaining 80%? Not possible.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

26 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I have no idea, why don't you Google it ?

 

Never mind, I did it for you. 

From the Government website ; "As part of our Plan for Change to re-wire the state, 11 central London offices will be closed including one of the largest Whitehall buildings - saving £94m per year - as the number of roles in the capital is reduced by 12,000."

Of a 17.8 billion civil service salary bill (doesnt include buildings) they are saving 0.5% of salary bills. Imagine being part of a business with a section that is renound for inefficiencies and having a meeting about savings of 0.5%!  So they aren’t really making any civil service savings but want to tax us more. Great

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Seriously? Do you genuinely know no-one in the public sector? You really are so uninformed it makes discussion tedious. 
What do you think Councils did to react to the reduction in funding, illustrated below? No reviews whatsoever, no cuts? You are beyond belief 

I took Councils as an example. Yes, there is still no doubt loads of wasters and inefficiencies still there

 

 

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

[OldNick]

A friend asked the council some years ago how much of his council tax was for historic pensions, it came back if I recall correctly, as around 40%. 

[iansums]

11 minutes ago, OldNick said:

A friend asked the council some years ago how much of his council tax was for historic pensions, it came back if I recall correctly, as around 40%. 

Public sector pensions, another meaty topic that needs looking at.

[tdmickey3]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Incorrect. @tdmickey3 criticised reform policy and I asked him what his alternative would be. He couldn’t respond so the point was don’t criticise if you don’t have an alternative to put forward. I actually think streeting comes across as one of the few competent ministers.

you haven’t responded to my question about spending cuts though

You need to get life, this place is consuming you 

[tdmickey3]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

Public sector pensions, another meaty topic that needs looking at.

Jealousy is not a good feeling to have

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, iansums said:

Public sector pensions, another meaty topic that needs looking at.

Yeah all those teachers and nurses that are so easy to recruit, most buy coastal homes in Barbados with their windfalls when they retire

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

Jealousy is not a good feeling to have

Its not jealousy, it is common sense. Workers in the private sector are paying for lavish pensions and early retirement, Im not talking about pensios for the lower earners but the higher echelons 

[whelk]

46 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

Don’t know but quick Google came back with 

UK local government has experienced significant real-term spending cuts, with 

total core spending power in England falling by approximately 11% between 2010/11 and 2024/25, primarily due to a large reduction in central government grants. While spending power has partially recovered since a low point in 2019/20, it remains substantially lower than in 2010. Specific service cuts have varied, with substantial real-terms reductions seen in areas like highways, culture, and housing. 

 

Trends in spending power

• Overall reduction: Total core spending power for English local authorities was about 11% lower in 2024/25 than in 2010/11, even after some recovery since 2019/20.
• Government grants: A 40% real-terms cut in central government grants between 2009/10 and 2019/20 was a primary driver of the decrease, though some increased funding for the pandemic partially offset the total grant reduction.
• Council tax increase: Local councils have increased council tax revenue by 30% in real terms since 2009/10 to compensate for lost grants, a practice enabled by the Localism Act 2011. 

 

Specific service impacts

• Highways and transport: Saw a decrease of 45% in real-terms spending per person between 2010/11 and 2019/20.
• Culture and leisure: Spending decreased by 45% per person over the same period.
• Housing: Spending per person fell by 44% between 2010/11 and 2019/20.
• Adult social care: Saw a 2% real-terms decrease in spending per person between 2010/11 and 2019/20.
• Children's social care: Increased by 11% in real terms over the same period.

 

Other impacts

• Increased pressure: Councils are facing immense pressure from rising demand for services like social care and homelessness support, coupled with high inflation and energy costs.
• Funding gap: These pressures have created a significant funding gap, with some councils facing a combined shortfall of £4 billion over the next two years.
• Deprivation: Local authorities in more deprived areas, which are more reliant on grants, experienced much larger funding cuts initially. However, the government has since tried to reverse this trend to give more funding to deprived areas

[OldNick]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah all those teachers and nurses that are so easy to recruit, most buy coastal homes in Barbados with their windfalls when they retire

Its a difficult subject, as soon as you say teacher or nurse people get all precious. As i say Im not so concerned bout those at the lower levels but the management structure where it seems to be  very much over done

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Its not jealousy, it is common sense. Workers in the private sector are paying for lavish pensions and early retirement, Im not talking about pensios for the lower earners but the higher echelons 

It is because he would not be suggesting it needs looking at if he had one...

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Its a difficult subject, as soon as you say teacher or nurse people get all precious. As i say Im not so concerned bout those at the lower levels but the management structure where it seems to be  very much over done

The trade off for these staff, most of  who won’t be earning fortunes, is that there is a reasonable pension at the end as ‘reward’ for their public service.  I don’t know personally how gold plated they actually are but know a retired teacher with longish service and wasn’t as much as I assumed.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by whelk

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

It is because he would not be suggesting it needs looking at if he had one...

Of course, but the cost needs to be addressed. Billions extra is being poured into the NHS, has it improved? No, the budgets get biger and the need for really making it efficient is looked over. 

Even people in the NHS admit to the massive waste. I want the NHS to be good for us all but constant putting money in isnt the answer.

[OldNick]

Just now, whelk said:

The trade off for these staff, most of  who won’t be earning fortunes, is that there is a reasonable pension at the end as reward for their public services.  I don’t know personally how gold plated they actually are but know a retired teacher with longish service and wasn’t as much as I assumed.

 

Im sure, but I beieve many outside of being a teacher fret at them having untold weeks off and when they go back to work there always seems to be a teacher training day, normally on a monday for a long weekend. Training should be in the school holidays

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Even people in the NHS admit to the massive waste. I want the NHS to be good for us all but constant putting money in isnt the answer.

TBF I think Streeting has acknowledged this that needs reform to not just be a money pit

[OldNick]

Just now, whelk said:

TBF I think Streeting has acknowledged this that needs reform to not just be a money pit

I feel he is the best MP that Labour has got

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Seriously? Do you genuinely know no-one in the public sector? You really are so uninformed it makes discussion tedious. 
What do you think Councils did to react to the reduction in funding, illustrated below? No reviews whatsoever, no cuts? You are beyond belief 

I took Councils as an example. Yes, there is still no doubt loads of wasters and inefficiencies still there

 

 

Do you have the source for this, and the rest of the figure?

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Of course, but the cost needs to be addressed. Billions extra is being poured into the NHS, has it improved? No, the budgets get biger and the need for really making it efficient is looked over. 

Even people in the NHS admit to the massive waste. I want the NHS to be good for us all but constant putting money in isnt the answer.

I thought we were on about Civil Service Pensions??

You cannot cut pensions agreed previously but you can change it for new employees potentially.

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Do you have the source for this, and the rest of the figure?

See above - no deep personal knowledge other than an awareness. It was in response to Ralph saying why are they not reviewing and cutting……they clearly have. And that isn’t a defence of them being super efficient 

Edited 4 hours ago by whelk

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

The trade off for these staff, most of  who won’t be earning fortunes, is that there is a reasonable pension at the end as ‘reward’ for their public service.  I don’t know personally how gold plated they actually are but know a retired teacher with longish service and wasn’t as much as I assumed.

 

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

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

It is because he would not be suggesting it needs looking at if he had one...

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

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

I thought we were on about Civil Service Pensions??

You cannot cut pensions agreed previously but you can change it for new employees potentially.

Yes I do go off on tangents, but I have so much in my head going around and this all is linked to the general waste. 

Iam comfortable paying 2p more in tax, as long as soon as I start paying it I dont see doctors, teachers and other public workers getting bigger salaries. Im sure as soon as there is more money there, their Unions will think 'lets fill our boots' as the NHS and Education the MP's are frightened to bring it to the table, as it is a vote loser

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

Mind your own business

[OldNick]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

I suspect we know the answer. Good luck if it is the case, but no reason not to really look intothe future awards

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Mind your own business

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.😂

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

So yes. Thats why you dont want to discuss it. Very hypocritical.

Why would anyone discuss their pension on a football forum especially with you?

You are a truly odd individual..

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Why would anyone discuss their pension on a football forum especially with you?

You are a truly odd individual..

I am - thats one thing you are right about.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

ok do you work on the public sector (1) yes (2) no. I’m just trying to understand why you have taken to stance you do.

I will repeat it for you and I will make it bigger this time so finally get it

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

Ask Farage about his business who you seem to support you will find he is milking the system

Edited 4 hours ago by tdmickey3

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Im sure, but I beieve many outside of being a teacher fret at them having untold weeks off and when they go back to work there always seems to be a teacher training day, normally on a monday for a long weekend. Training should be in the school holidays

"Untold weeks off".

 

LOLOLOL

 

Try being  or being married to a teacher. You would know that phrase for the total bollocks it truly is.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

I do, and I bloody well earned it.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

I do, and I bloody well earned it.

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

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[OldNick]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"Untold weeks off".

 

LOLOLOL

 

Try being  or being married to a teacher. You would know that phrase for the total bollocks it truly is.

is it 6 or 8 weeks in the summer ? then 6 weeks before another week or 2. There is no real need for this as my understanding is that the long vacations were for historic reasons eg when the kids helped with the harvest. Please dont come back saying about stress etc as most modern jobs have untold stress.  

[sadoldgit]

33 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

No one in this country could live on the state pension alone unless they have won the lottery.

My wife has a Civil Service pension. It is fairly reasonable (at the moment) but she spent 33 years earning crap pay and this was her reason for staying in the job.

I watched a programme called Location Location Location last night. One couple were looking for a modest semi priced at around £1m. The other couple were looking at modest 2 bedroomed flat price not much under half a million quid. Cost of living prices have excelerated way about earnings and benefits over the last 10 years or so. You used to be able to buy 3 pints and still get change from a ten bob note. Now a pint can cost you £7. A portion of fish’n’chips used to be a very cheap meal, now you are lucky to get change out of a £20 note. 

Cutting wages and benefits will only cripple the country even more than it is at the moment.

[sadoldgit]

5 minutes ago, OldNick said:

is it 6 or 8 weeks in the summer ? then 6 weeks before another week or 2. There is no real need for this as my understanding is that the long vacations were for historic reasons eg when the kids helped with the harvest. Please dont come back saying about stress etc as most modern jobs have untold stress.  

Do you actually know how much work teachers do out of the classroom? I’m guessing not.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh fuck me, he’ll be telling about licking Romney Marsh’s roads clean, and getting up  for work 10 mins before going to bed next…

Edited 3 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No one in this country could live on the state pension alone unless they have won the lottery.

My wife has a Civil Service pension. It is fairly reasonable (at the moment) but she spent 33 years earning crap pay and this was her reason for staying in the job.

I watched a programme called Location Location Location last night. One couple were looking for a modest semi priced at around £1m. The other couple were looking at modest 2 bedroomed flat price not much under half a million quid. Cost of living prices have excelerated way about earnings and benefits over the last 10 years or so. You used to be able to buy 3 pints and still get change from a ten bob note. Now a pint can cost you £7. A portion of fish’n’chips used to be a very cheap meal, now you are lucky to get change out of a £20 note. 

Cutting wages and benefits will only cripple the country even more than it is at the moment.

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.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph