The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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.

In which case be more clear and specific in making your assertions.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

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.

Edited yesterday at 10:44 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

It's vague to refer to unspecified sectors. If you refer to sectors, say which sectors. If in reality you actually don't know, then just admit what's obviously the case. 

Back to my yes or no question on public sector pay. Are you calling for a reduction or increase? I've said I'll return to pensions once you've addressed that simple question. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

If only it was that easy.

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

What email?

So I say that get paid 50% more in the private sector Vs public. You post a graph showing, in your eyes and post, that public sector people get paid more than private sector.

For that, you're either an idiot, or you are young and not aware. You've already said you're not young.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:49 by Farmer Saint

[egg]

26 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. 

If I did the nearest equivalent of my public role in a private setting the remuneration would be (and has been) much more than double. But, the pension is great, and public service life in my situation is much easier than the reality of a commercial environment. 

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If only it was that easy.

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

[egg]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

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

Are we now talking about a performance rated public service pension? 

[Farmer Saint]

Just a very quick example near me:

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:57 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

In which case be more clear and specific in making your assertions.

I think it's a fairly easy rule of thumb in general. I have posted the first example I could find below in the industry I was in until 2014. I would expect it to be similar elsewhere.

Lower paid jobs tend to be closer due to minimum wage ensuring a more level playing field. When you get to director level the pay is far outside the 50%.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Just a very quick example near me:

 

 

Seems fairly typical of the spread in a comparable role. 

Factor in that the LGPS is a 49th scheme, so that person will get a pension worth about £920 a year in retirement in today's money. Buying an annuity for that amount would cost about £12-16k. Total the two, and the public sector person is still out of pocket to the private sector person coming in anywhere above the very bottom of the pay scale. 

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Are we now talking about a performance rated public service pension? 

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. 

[badgerx16]

If only the public sector had performance appraisals.

 

Oh, wait, they do.

 

It might be harder to weed out the deadwood, but it can be done - I have done it. You just have to work within the system.

Edited yesterday at 11:11 by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

If only the public sector had performance appraisals.

 

Oh, wait, they do.

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.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

See my edit above.

[tdmickey3]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

🤡

[Sir Ralph]

 

45 minutes ago, egg said:

It's vague to refer to unspecified sectors. If you refer to sectors, say which sectors. If in reality you actually don't know, then just admit what's obviously the case. 

Back to my yes or no question on public sector pay. Are you calling for a reduction or increase? I've said I'll return to pensions once you've addressed that simple question. 

My emails are pretty clear on what I've suggested and given examples of departments specifically for starters.  

[sadoldgit]

56 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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.

When my wife and I were working for the CPS, not the Civil Service as such but a Government agency, every pay grade level was well below the private sector equivalent until you got to very senior grades.

My wife ended on a B3 grade which is high middle management and would have earned considerably more in an equivalent job in the private sector (non London pay scales).

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

The employers contribution is notional. The money doesn't go into a pot. That's the part yuu seem to me misunderstanding. 

The schemes (save LGPS) are unfunded. The schemes are annual accrual by reference to the salary and the pension division, ie 1/40, 1/49, etc.

If (and you still haven't answered the question) you're advocating a higher salary, but the divider remains, the pension actually increases, albeit paid for by the governments when the employees scheme falls into payment. 

So, if you want more pay, accept that pension costs wll increase over time. If you want less pay, or a reduced pension, accept that we won't recruit them public servants we need. 

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, egg said:

The employers contribution is notional. The money doesn't go into a pot. That's the part yuu seem to me misunderstanding. 

The schemes (save LGPS) are unfunded. The schemes are annual accrual by reference to the salary and the pension division, ie 1/40, 1/49, etc.

If (and you still haven't answered the question) you're advocating a higher salary, but the divider remains, the pension actually increases, albeit paid for by the governments when the employees scheme falls into payment. 

So, if you want more pay, accept that pension costs wll increase over time. If you want less pay, or a reduced pension, accept that we won't recruit them public servants we need. 

I genuinely don't understand what they are arguing. Are they advocating more pay for some, less pay for others, higher pension for some, lower pension for others? Considering that SR thinks that public servants get paid more than their private equivalents the arguments don't stack up. I just don't get it.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Some years ago, when I was about to contribute to put my kids through Uni, I voted Lib Dem - their policies spoke positively to me and I particularly liked what they had to say on education fees. They lied and being a man of principle, I swore I would never vote for them again.

Role on to the present and I’m a pensioner who voted Labour in the last election because historically they looked after the vulnerable in society. Since they were elected they’ve attempted to make lives harder for the elderly and infirm and there’s seemingly no stopping them now. Pensioners are fair game because they’re scared to go after the wealthiest in society. But the biggest issue I have with Starmer and his government is that they throw good money after bad by not cutting out waste and championing overseas projects before sorting out the UK and its citizens. I’ll never vote Labour again.

Interestingly, even though I wanted to see the back of the last Conservative government, during their tenure my standard of living did rise a little. And I’m what I consider upper working class.

[tdmickey3]

4 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Some years ago, when I was about to contribute to put my kids through Uni, I voted Lib Dem - their policies spoke positively to me and I particularly liked what they had to say on education fees. They lied and being a man of principle, I swore I would never vote for them again.

Role on to the present and I’m a pensioner who voted Labour in the last election because historically they looked after the vulnerable in society. Since they were elected they’ve attempted to make lives harder for the elderly and infirm and there’s seemingly no stopping them now. Pensioners are fair game because they’re scared to go after the wealthiest in society. But the biggest issue I have with Starmer and his government is that they throw good money after bad by not cutting out waste and championing overseas projects before sorting out the UK and its citizens. I’ll never vote Labour again.

Interestingly, even though I wanted to see the back of the last Conservative government, during their tenure my standard of living did rise a little. And I’m what I consider upper working class.

Reform it is them ? 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Some years ago, when I was about to contribute to put my kids through Uni, I voted Lib Dem - their policies spoke positively to me and I particularly liked what they had to say on education fees. They lied and being a man of principle, I swore I would never vote for them again.

Role on to the present and I’m a pensioner who voted Labour in the last election because historically they looked after the vulnerable in society. Since they were elected they’ve attempted to make lives harder for the elderly and infirm and there’s seemingly no stopping them now. Pensioners are fair game because they’re scared to go after the wealthiest in society. But the biggest issue I have with Starmer and his government is that they throw good money after bad by not cutting out waste and championing overseas projects before sorting out the UK and its citizens. I’ll never vote Labour again.

Interestingly, even though I wanted to see the back of the last Conservative government, during their tenure my standard of living did rise a little. And I’m what I consider upper working class.

So you think we should be going after the wealthiest in society? Do you think we should have the triple lock?

I assume you're thinking Conservative again then, as Reform are likely to hit pensioners too judging by Tice's interview on LBC the other night.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

When my wife and I were working for the CPS, not the Civil Service as such but a Government agency, every pay grade level was well below the private sector equivalent until you got to very senior grades.

My wife ended on a B3 grade which is high middle management and would have earned considerably more in an equivalent job in the private sector (non London pay scales).

I should have added that we were both receiving less than the national average wage when we left the service.

[aintforever]

19 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Interestingly, even though I wanted to see the back of the last Conservative government, during their tenure my standard of living did rise a little.  

That's probably because you are old and you had the winter fuel allowance to put towards one of your holidays.

[Sir Ralph]

29 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Reform it is them ? 

What a Wally you are.

Edited yesterday at 13:05 by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

20 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

What a Wally you are.

Did I respond to you?.......

🤡

[egg]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

Again you misunderstand. There is no 30% going into a pension. In private schemes, the contribution goes into a dB or cash pot. In unfunded public schemes, there is no actual pot, the person merely banks a future benefit to be paid funded in the future. 

I'll tap out again. You fail to answer simple questions, and go off in directions that you don't understand. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

Again you misunderstand. There is no 30% going into a pension. In private schemes, the contribution goes into a dB or cash pot. In unfunded public schemes, there is no actual pot, the person merely banks a future benefit to be paid funded in the future. 

I'll tap out again. You fail to answer simple questions, and go off in directions that you don't understand. 

I'll respond in due course but i'm working. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

I genuinely don't understand what they are arguing. Are they advocating more pay for some, less pay for others, higher pension for some, lower pension for others? Considering that SR thinks that public servants get paid more than their private equivalents the arguments don't stack up. I just don't get it.

Absolutely no idea mate. I've asked a simple question but got no answer. I think they've figured out that if they stuck with their plan a and paid public sector workers more money, whilst funding the existing pensions in payment, we'd be much deeper in the shit than we are now. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

Absolutely no idea mate. I've asked a simple question but got no answer. I think they've figured out that if they stuck with their plan a and paid public sector workers more money, whilst funding the existing pensions in payment, we'd be much deeper in the shit than we are now. 

I'm working but will reply

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm working but will reply

Those flats don't rent themselves out...

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Those flats don't rent themselves out...

I work as tea boy in the estate agent....they dont let me near the houses

Edited yesterday at 13:55 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I work as tea boy in the estate agent....they dont let me near the houses

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

[tdmickey3]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I work as tea boy in the estate agent....they dont let me near the houses

Understandable 

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Reform it is them ? 

Undecided.

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Undecided.

👍

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Undecided.

Be careful...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15258175/Reforms-Richard-Tice-warns-triple-lock-unsustainable.html

Unlikely to tax the wealthy either.

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

So you think we should be going after the wealthiest in society? Do you think we should have the triple lock?

I assume you're thinking Conservative again then, as Reform are likely to hit pensioners too judging by Tice's interview on LBC the other night.

I think proportional taxation is fair. Of course I believe in the triple lock while state pensions fall well below the minimum living wage. Taxing any one individual 40% + of their salary is wrong and unjust. The top 1% wealthiest in the UK hold their wealth not necessarily in money/cash but in investments, so a tax on removal any of this wealth from the UK is fair.

As I’ve already replied, there are decreasing options for voters now…there is no one party that I can honestly say I agree with. This country was abandoned by the political elite decades ago.

[whelk]

One thing I will agree with Ralph is that lazy sods are drawn to the public sector. My niece works in NHS and shocking some of the malingerers getting away with murder playing the system and managers who lose the will to drive through their much needed performance management. Obviously loads of brilliant people there too.

[Sir Ralph]

10 hours ago, egg said:

Absolutely no idea mate. I've asked a simple question but got no answer. I think they've figured out that if they stuck with their plan a and paid public sector workers more money, whilst funding the existing pensions in payment, we'd be much deeper in the shit than we are now. 

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. 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

9 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Be careful...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15258175/Reforms-Richard-Tice-warns-triple-lock-unsustainable.html

Unlikely to tax the wealthy either.

You agreed with removing the triple lock too, as I recall. You must think Reforms idea is a good one then? 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

You agreed with removing the triple lock too, as I recall. You must think Reforms idea is a good one then? 

 

Which element would you remove?

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Which element would you remove?

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. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

You agreed with removing the triple lock too, as I recall. You must think Reforms idea is a good one then? 

 

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.

Edited 11 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

9 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

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)?

[Farmer Saint]

9 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

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?

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

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.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

 

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.

Edited 6 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

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.

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.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph