The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

46 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.  

My experience of stress in parts of the public sector and the private sector have different threshold levels (not for all I hasten to add, but many). This from someone who has worked in both. The pay does reflect this in parts of the private sector to add balance. I have known a few people in the public sector that are underpaid for their output and I would pay them more if I was in charge, but there are some sectors where the levels of output wouldnt be acceptable in most private sector environments. In my own experience, the former is less common than the latter.

Edited Thursday at 13:17 by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

39 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.

Maybe the Govt should drop all green taxes to reduce costs to the consumer, yes?

[badgerx16]

1 hour 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.  

Like I said total bollocks. My wife was a Primary teacher: she would do 2 hours at school after the pupils had left then another 2 or 3 at home in the evening, plus most of the day on Sunday marking and planning. Of the six weeks in the summer, probably 3 involved work at home, or even for the week before term started going into school.

This is an easily trotted out, and for those in the system easily debunked, lazy meme. You can do better.

 

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I have known a few people in the public sector that are underpaid for their output and I would pay them more if I was in charge, but there are some sectors where the levels of output wouldnt be acceptable in most private sector environments.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

[iansums]

4 hours 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

Your usual mocking response. I would actually like to see public sector pensions brought more in line with the private sector. I’m sure many would prefer to see a higher wage than the relatively large amount going into their pensions.

[Winnersaint]

2 hours 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

This, like many things needs breaking down. Firstly the untold weeks off. Teachers can only work when children are in school, apart that is from the 'training days' which I'll come to in a bit. Obviously there are historical and societal reasons for the term/holiday times particularly the 6 weeks in the summer which have faded in importance. There's quite a lot of solid evidence of learning loss particularly around primary to secondary transition and arguments spacing out term/holiday time throughout the year have some value. A full-time teacher is contracted for 1265 hours annually over 195 days, including 5 training days. and receives the statutory holiday entitlement of 28 days paid annual leave which is factored into the salary calculations. As leave has to be taken during the school holidays teachers have a great deal of flexibility as to when they can take it, but outside of those 5.6 weeks that all full time workers are entitled to all other time off is not paid for. Payment is spread across twelve months rather than just term time for convenience. Put simply, teachers are paid during school holidays not for school holidays Looking at those training days which are something of a nuisance, I agree, if you put those in the school holidays where teachers are not working nor being paid for you'd have to pay them just to comply with the existing contact of employment. Extrapolating my salary to 2025 from 2015 when I retired, me attending training days would cost the school £1700+ whether during term time or in holiday time. Putting them elsewhere won't save any money. The other flaw is around when teachers go on holiday, particularly in the summer. It would be a logistical nightmare to ensure everyone could attend during holiday periods. Another thing to consider is that some schools, including ones I've worked in use twilight (after school) time to deliver training in lieu of the training days. Most secondary schools do two or three days at the end of the summer holidays and split the rest across the year during time.

[Sir Ralph]

4 hours ago, skintsaint said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

I agree for the good ones so I think you could pay good people more and make it easier to get rid of the shite ones. It’s notoriously difficult to sack bad people in the public sector. 

Edited Thursday at 19:25 by Sir Ralph

[Baird of the land]

Labour’s new deputy seems an absolute clown.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Baird of the land said:

Labour’s new deputy seems an absolute clown.

It’s the only way you can get into this Government. It’s a minimum requirement.

[AlexLaw76]

6 hours ago, skintsaint said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

part of the gig in the CS is the decent pension and the insane job security. 

[Gloucester Saint]

5 hours ago, iansums said:

Your usual mocking response. I would actually like to see public sector pensions brought more in line with the private sector. I’m sure many would prefer to see a higher wage than the relatively large amount going into their pensions.

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

[skintsaint]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

Explains is well and how it changed :

https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-pensions.html

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

I do some work in the public sector and have a pension. It'd cost a fortune to buy an equivalent scheme privately. The role doesn't pay brilliantly though, and the pension is the sweetener. If they dilute it I'm out, and that'll happen across the public sector. 

[iansums]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

I do some work in the public sector and have a pension. It'd cost a fortune to buy an equivalent scheme privately. The role doesn't pay brilliantly though, and the pension is the sweetener. If they dilute it I'm out, and that'll happen across the public sector. 

But wouldn’t you prefer a higher salary and less going into your pension? Especially when you are younger, have a mortgage, kids etc. Just read that teachers automatically pay from about 7% rising to 12% dependant on salary and the employer pays 28%. 

[egg]

8 hours ago, iansums said:

But wouldn’t you prefer a higher salary and less going into your pension? Especially when you are younger, have a mortgage, kids etc. Just read that teachers automatically pay from about 7% rising to 12% dependant on salary and the employer pays 28%. 

Absolutely not. It's locked in and I know what I'm getting and when. A stocks and shares based scheme doesn't give that certainty. Also, as said, the cost to me of buying the equivalent pension would require a massive hike in the salary.

Also bear in mind that if public sector pay increases now, the money has to be paid now. Most public sector pensions are unfunded schemes (local government schemes being the main exception) so the current government merely provide a guaranteed future benefit. It's the problem of future governments to actually pay them. 

The teachers contribute a lot to theirs (well a lot to paying the pensions currently in payment), but, they'd be paying much more to buy the equivalent pension benefits in the public sector. 

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Absolutely not. It's locked in and I know what I'm getting and when. A stocks and shares based scheme doesn't give that certainty. Also, as said, the cost to me of buying the equivalent pension would require a massive hike in the salary.

Also bear in mind that if public sector pay increases now, the money has to be paid now. Most public sector pensions are unfunded schemes (local government schemes being the main exception) so the current government merely provide a guaranteed future benefit. It's the problem of future governments to actually pay them. 

The teachers contribute a lot to theirs (well a lot to paying the pensions currently in payment), but, they'd be paying much more to buy the equivalent pension benefits in the public sector. 

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.

Edited yesterday at 08:40 by Sir Ralph

[iansums]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Absolutely not. It's locked in and I know what I'm getting and when. A stocks and shares based scheme doesn't give that certainty. Also, as said, the cost to me of buying the equivalent pension would require a massive hike in the salary.

Also bear in mind that if public sector pay increases now, the money has to be paid now. Most public sector pensions are unfunded schemes (local government schemes being the main exception) so the current government merely provide a guaranteed future benefit. It's the problem of future governments to actually pay them. 

The teachers contribute a lot to theirs (well a lot to paying the pensions currently in payment), but, they'd be paying much more to buy the equivalent pension benefits in the public sector. 

So this the trade off then, work in the public sector for lower pay but better pensions.

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

@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 

Edited yesterday at 08:28 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

So this the trade off then, work in the public sector for lower pay but better pensions.

No. Public sector roles by nature are only available in the public sector.

[iansums]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

No. Public sector roles by nature are only available in the public sector.

Not sure what you mean by this? I was just trying to say that in the public sector, you may receive a lower salary but would have a better pension. In the private sector, yes you may receive a higher salary but you would get far less pension contribution from your employer and so have to fund more of it yourself.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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

The point is that it suits the present government to pay less and use the pension contributions of those currently contributing towards the pensions in payment. It's always been that way. 

You advocate spending cuts, so I'm not sure where you're going here. The only realistic change is for government to increase public sector pay, to bank people's pension contributions for the future, and pay existing pensions entirely from tax and borrowing. 

What are you actually saying should happen? 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

Not sure what you mean by this? I was just trying to say that in the public sector, you may receive a lower salary but would have a better pension. In the private sector, yes you may receive a higher salary but you would get far less pension contribution from your employer and so have to fund more of it yourself.

Public sector roles are only available in the public sector. 

I haven't seen many private sector firemen, soldiers, civil servants, judges, etc.

Are you saying that people shouldn't do those jobs and go and do something else in the private arena? 

[iansums]

Just now, egg said:

Public sector roles are only available in the public sector. 

I haven't seen many private sector firemen, soldiers, civil servants, judges, etc.

Are you saying that people shouldn't do those jobs and go and do something else in the private arena? 

I think you mis-understand. I am talking in general terms, not about specific roles. I think someone earlier mentioned about lower pay in the public sector (pay peanuts, get monkeys).

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is that it suits the present government to pay less and use the pension contributions of those currently contributing towards the pensions in payment. It's always been that way. 

You advocate spending cuts, so I'm not sure where you're going here. The only realistic change is for government to increase public sector pay, to bank people's pension contributions for the future, and pay existing pensions entirely from tax and borrowing. 

What are you actually saying should happen? 

 

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]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

@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 

Its funny mainly because these "Alleged excessive" pensions you are clearly upset and jealous about are offered contractually so nothing argue about and secondly because you are obsessed with certain things and some posters and i find it hilarious 

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, iansums said:

I think you mis-understand. I am talking in general terms, not about specific roles. I think someone earlier mentioned about lower pay in the public sector (pay peanuts, get monkeys).

I don't misunderstand. The country needs public services and people to operate it. 

[iansums]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't misunderstand. The country needs public services and people to operate it. 

You definitley do. I know the country needs public services, of course it does, and those people should be rewarded fairly for the work they do. I am just comparing pay/pensions in the private/public sectors.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, iansums said:

You definitley do. I know the country needs public services, of course it does, and those people should be rewarded fairly for the work they do. I am just comparing pay/pensions in the private/public sectors.

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

You definitley do. I know the country needs public services, of course it does, and those people should be rewarded fairly for the work they do. I am just comparing pay/pensions in the private/public sectors.

It's a false comparison. The government is obliged to pay pensions in payment. They can't do that whilst paying higher wages. 

[egg]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

Quite. I think we have people arguing to increase public sector pay, make spending cuts, and save for future PS pensions.

Regardless, any attempt to significantly alter PS pensions will lead to another McCloud situation. The impact and cost of that is another timebomb this government has has had to absorb, and we haven't yet felt the full impact of. 

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:20 by Sir Ralph

[iansums]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

Yes, I realise that, any change would be over many years. I'm not necesarily proposing it just discussing the relative merits of private/public sector pensions and pay.

[iansums]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

It's a false comparison. The government is obliged to pay pensions in payment. They can't do that whilst paying higher wages. 

Why is it a false comparison?

[egg]

27 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

Again you're vague. If you spell out the other sectors that you refer to, that'd help.

Regardless, the PS needs staffing. Let's take this in stages. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after. 

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

[egg]

Just now, iansums said:

Why is it a false comparison?

Because many PS roles don't have a private sector comparison. What does a private sector army officer get paid? Fireman? Judge? Etc. 

I'll repeat my question to Ralph. The PS needs staffing. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after

[Sir Ralph]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

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

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Unsure what you're attempting to prove with this?

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph 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

OMFG, you're such a fucking idiot. That's not comparing role to role, that's averaging every role.

[egg]

26 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

OMFG, you're such a fucking idiot. That's not comparing role to role, that's averaging every role.

Putting your valid point to one side, I'm unsure what he's saying here. Have we now moved into lower PS pay and pension territory? Earlier I thought it was increase the pay and lower pension. That was certainly Iansums point. 

[badgerx16]

51 minutes ago, Sir Ralph 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

1) There are far more low skilled or unskilled jobs in the private sector, which brings the average down. At the lower end, the public sector does also pay slightly higher wages compared to the private.

2) A higher proportion of public sector jobs require A levels or degrees, so will reflect that in the salary.

3) Job specific comparisons for 'professional' roles, for instance in IT, will show that private pay can be quite a bit higher on a like for like basis. I could easily have raked in %15 to %20 more if I was willing to move to Manchester, but settled for a better quality of life overall.

Edited yesterday at 10:17 by badgerx16

[OldNick]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a fools errand doing that. Public sector pay is at least 50% less than private. If you increase pay and decrease pensions then your bill is going up substantially in the short to medium term. How do you fund that? Higher taxes?

I doubt that its 50% less. Although very difficult to guage as not many like for like jobs. Im not against the rank and file but the bloated management structure. 

 

[Sir Ralph]

53 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

OMFG, you're such a fucking idiot. That's not comparing role to role, that's averaging every role.

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.

Edited yesterday at 10:19 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

1) There are far more low skilled or unskilled jobs in the private sector, which brings the average down.

2) A higher proportion of public sector jobs require A levels or degrees, so will reflect that in the salary.

3) Job specific comparisons for 'professional' roles, for instance in IT, will show that private pay can be quite a bit higher on a like for like basis. I could easily have raked in %15 to %20 more if I was willing to move to Manchester.

I think these are all fair points. The 50% difference is absolute BS as a general position though

[badgerx16]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I think these are all fair points. The 50% difference is absolute BS as a general position though

I think Farmer got a bit carried away.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think Farmer got a bit carried away.

I agree - dont call me an idiot though. He has this mightier than thou attitude when he sometimes talks rubbish. 

Edited yesterday at 10:22 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I think Farmer got a bit carried away.

I think it's fair to think that someone on £50k in the public sector will be on £75k in the private sector. It was certainly true in IT back in the mid 10's.

I am also comparing London wages TBF.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Again you're vague. If you spell out the other sectors that you refer to, that'd help.

Regardless, the PS needs staffing. Let's take this in stages. Are you suggesting that the government of this day increases it's costs by increasing PS pay? That's a yes or no. I'll return to pensions after. 

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.

Edited yesterday at 10:34 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree - dont call me an idiot though. He has this mightier than thou attitude when he sometimes talks rubbish. 

You posted another article which you didn't understand - if you are the age you purport to be then you would know that equivalent roles tend to be much poorer paid in the public sector. It's basics. Otherwise we'd all be working there wouldn't we?