The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Saint Fan CaM]

9 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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.

Of all the policies that Reform could introduce to lose a large % of the electorate that might vote for them, removing the Triple Lock would be a massive own goal.

[egg]

21 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Of all the policies that Reform could introduce to lose a large % of the electorate that might vote for them, removing the Triple Lock would be a massive own goal.

If they remove it, and run on that basis, I'll respect their honesty if nothing else. The triple lock is great if you receive and need a state pension, but unaffordable. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

If they remove it, and run on that basis, I'll respect their honesty if nothing else. The triple lock is great if you receive and need a state pension, but unaffordable. 

There are billions of £’s being spent or indeed wasted that are not for the benefit of UK citizens and yet here we are…

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

There are billions of £’s being spent or indeed wasted that are not for the benefit of UK citizens and yet here we are…

There are billions spent and wasted across many areas of government spending. Regardless of that, the triple lock is something I'd selfishly love to still be there when I start drawing a state pension, but I know it won't be, and that it cannot be afforded. 

[Farmer Saint]

5 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

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?

[iansums]

Home Secretary getting tough on immigration, looking to follow the Danish system. Well done to her, but it won’t go down well with the left wing if her party.

[iansums]

4 hours ago, egg said:

If they remove it, and run on that basis, I'll respect their honesty if nothing else. The triple lock is great if you receive and need a state pension, but unaffordable. 

We agree on something Mr Egg! The triple lock has to end at some point, it’s unsustainable, and I’m someone who’ll be retiring within the next 10 years. It’ll be a brave party that says they’ll do it.

[Whitey Grandad]

7 hours ago, egg said:

There are billions spent and wasted across many areas of government spending. Regardless of that, the triple lock is something I'd selfishly love to still be there when I start drawing a state pension, but I know it won't be, and that it cannot be afforded. 

It sounds a lot but in practice it's bugger all.

[egg]

8 hours ago, iansums said:

Home Secretary getting tough on immigration, looking to follow the Danish system. Well done to her, but it won’t go down well with the left wing if her party.

You say well done, but what bits do you like? Do you agree that we pay immigrants up to £24k to return home? How about replicating their "parallel societies" policy, including demolishing homes? We need to make ourselves less attractive  but there are boundaries of reasonableness. 

[egg]

6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It sounds a lot but in practice it's bugger all.

It's a lot to people who don't have much other income. I think the whole thing will end up being means tested and be seen more as a benefit. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

14 hours ago, egg said:

There are billions spent and wasted across many areas of government spending. Regardless of that, the triple lock is something I'd selfishly love to still be there when I start drawing a state pension, but I know it won't be, and that it cannot be afforded. 

In the light of state pensions not providing the equivalent of even the national minimum living wage, how would suggest pension levels are maintained?

Edited 21 hours ago by Saint Fan CaM

[egg]

1 minute ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

In the light of state pensions not providing the equivalent of even the national minimum living wage, how would suggest pension levels are maintained?

I haven't suggested they can be. I think lots of our public and welfare expenditure is unsustainable. The thing is, we have people simultaneously wanting some welfare payments slashed, but not the ones they want including the state pension. That's the society we live in - fuck them, but look after me. Child benefit became means tested, and it'll be the state pension next. 

[iansums]

2 hours ago, egg said:

You say well done, but what bits do you like? Do you agree that we pay immigrants up to £24k to return home? How about replicating their "parallel societies" policy, including demolishing homes? We need to make ourselves less attractive  but there are boundaries of reasonableness. 

No idea mate, don’t know much about it, but if it brings the numbers down and upsets you then I’m all for it.

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, egg said:

It's a lot to people who don't have much other income. I think the whole thing will end up being means tested and be seen more as a benefit. 

Indeed it is important to a lot of people. 

Over the decades the State Pension has moved from being something that was paid for out of contributions to something described as a benefit.  It’s not that long ago that there was a Department of Work and Pensions. To even think about means testing something that has already been paid for is despicable. 

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, egg said:

You say well done, but what bits do you like? Do you agree that we pay immigrants up to £24k to return home? How about replicating their "parallel societies" policy, including demolishing homes? We need to make ourselves less attractive  but there are boundaries of reasonableness. 

If you pay them to go home they'll keep coming back for a rinse and repeat.

[Saint Fan CaM]

9 hours ago, egg said:

I haven't suggested they can be. I think lots of our public and welfare expenditure is unsustainable. The thing is, we have people simultaneously wanting some welfare payments slashed, but not the ones they want including the state pension. That's the society we live in - fuck them, but look after me. Child benefit became means tested, and it'll be the state pension next. 

You’re talking as though a pension is a benefit - it’s not…it’s a right for those who have paid NI all their lives. Those who rely on their state pension to live are not likely to be worrying about others as such…they just need to eat and keep themselves warm - basic needs which the corrupt political elite seem to think is a luxury. Unless you’re an illegal migrant - then you get 3 square meals and a nice heated 4 star hotel room, a mobile phone, cinema tickets...etc. The waste and dogmatic skewed priorities need to be eradicated before putting even more pensioners into poverty.

[Farmer Saint]

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?

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

You’re talking as though a pension is a benefit - it’s not…it’s a right for those who have paid NI all their lives. Those who rely on their state pension to live are not likely to be worrying about others as such…they just need to eat and keep themselves warm - basic needs which the corrupt political elite seem to think is a luxury. Unless you’re an illegal migrant - then you get 3 square meals and a nice heated 4 star hotel room, a mobile phone, cinema tickets...etc. The waste and dogmatic skewed priorities need to be eradicated before putting even more pensioners into poverty.

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.

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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.

Also if you give pensioners free cinema tickets they’d only fall asleep and piss on the seats

[whelk]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

But they have never reviewed any thing ever. No one has ever thought of that. Just make them efficient and stop taking my taxes.

 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

You’re talking as though a pension is a benefit - it’s not…it’s a right for those who have paid NI all their lives. Those who rely on their state pension to live are not likely to be worrying about others as such…they just need to eat and keep themselves warm - basic needs which the corrupt political elite seem to think is a luxury. Unless you’re an illegal migrant - then you get 3 square meals and a nice heated 4 star hotel room, a mobile phone, cinema tickets...etc. The waste and dogmatic skewed priorities need to be eradicated before putting even more pensioners into poverty.

I call it a welfare benefit because it is.

I don't think it should be means tested, but I think it will be at some point because it's unaffordable. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

You’re talking as though a pension is a benefit - it’s not…it’s a right for those who have paid NI all their lives. Those who rely on their state pension to live are not likely to be worrying about others as such…they just need to eat and keep themselves warm - basic needs which the corrupt political elite seem to think is a luxury. Unless you’re an illegal migrant - then you get 3 square meals and a nice heated 4 star hotel room, a mobile phone, cinema tickets...etc. The waste and dogmatic skewed priorities need to be eradicated before putting even more pensioners into poverty.

Don’t you get a state pension regardless of wether you’ve worked or not?

[egg]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Don’t you get a state pension regardless of wether you’ve worked or not?

It's NI contribution linked. 

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Don’t you get a state pension regardless of wether you’ve worked or not?

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

[Sir Ralph]

50 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

I’ll make some suggestions on points that I maybe able to respond to, although, like you say, I don’t have all the information to make a precise judgement. 
 

The key point though is, do you believe that, like Starmer, there is inefficiency in some public sector departments that needs to be addressed which could result in savings? Without having common ground on that, responding to the above is pointless.

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ll make some suggestions on points that I maybe able to respond to, although, like you say, I don’t have all the information to make a precise judgement. 
 

The key point though is, do you believe that, like Starmer, there is inefficiency in some public sector departments that needs to be addressed which could result in savings? Without having common ground on that, responding to the above is pointless.

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.

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

38 minutes ago, whelk said:

But they have never reviewed any thing ever. No one has ever thought of that. Just make them efficient and stop taking my taxes.

 

Do you disagree with Starmer when he said this:

Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector hasdropped 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

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Do you disagree with Starmer when he said this:

 

Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector hasdropped 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

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

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

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.

So yes it is possible but it hasn’t been done. I disagree that in 1.5 years you couldn’t have done a review of key departments to identify inefficiency. I agree that would be more difficult across the whole public sector.
 

in terms of responses 

1. What percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services (IE that you'd get rid of)? I’m not sure as a percentage but a serious review of departments that are known to be inefficient (eg civil service and some quangos) is a good start.

2. Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)? I think you start with ones know to be inefficient and spend your time on those. I agree it’s a big job to review all departments and may not be worthwhile for some in terms of savings. Start with easier wins

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? If departments have inefficiencies they are by their very nature “flabby”. I expect the existing staff (the better quality ones) to pick this up but would remunerate them accordingly

4. Would you reduce pensions for people already in role, or would it just be for new starters? I think that would dependent on the department review. If pensions for those departments are high and they are quite inefficient then a pension alteration  maybe needed across those those departments for all staff. With good quality staff getting increased remuneration- this will minimise the impact on them. 

5. If everyone currently in role, how would you bridge that gap? Sorry don’t understand 

 

[The Kraken]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ll make some suggestions on points that I maybe able to respond to, although, like you say, I don’t have all the information to make a precise judgement. 
 

The key point though is, do you believe that, like Starmer, there is inefficiency in some public sector departments that needs to be addressed which could result in savings? Without having common ground on that, responding to the above is pointless.

You’re doing your thing again when you say there’s loads of savings to be made, but you can’t specify where they are. You’ve been asked plenty of times to be more specific and you just return to generalisation.

Be more efficient.  Make cuts.  Savings.

Its not really helpful, is it?

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, The Kraken said:

You’re doing your thing again when you say there’s loads of savings to be made, but you can’t specify where they are. You’ve been asked plenty of times to be more specific and you just return to generalisation.

Be more efficient.  Make cuts.  Savings.

Its not really helpful, is it?

I have identified areas departments  where savings could potentially be made. There are a number of departments which are know to be more inefficient. To identify the precise level of saving you need a review of those departments. I obviously can’t do that from my living room, neither can you say they are efficient for the same reason.

My point is that there are efficiencies savings to be made (posters on here and Starmer has admitted to this) but that this hasn’t been targeted to minimise tax increases. That was my point all along and I fail to see that it’s controversial 

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So yes it is possible but it hasn’t been done. I disagree that in 1.5 years you couldn’t have done a review of key departments to identify inefficiency. I agree that would be more difficult across the whole public sector.
 

in terms of responses 

 

1. What percentage of staff do you think are inefficient in public services (IE that you'd get rid of)? I’m not sure as a percentage but a serious review of departments that are known to be inefficient (eg civil service and some quangos) is a good start.

2. Is this across all departments (NHS, MOD etc)? I think you start with ones know to be inefficient and spend your time on those. I agree it’s a big job to review all departments and may not be worthwhile for some in terms of savings. Start with easier wins

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? If departments have inefficiencies they are by their very nature “flabby”. I expect the existing staff (the better quality ones) to pick this up but would remunerate them accordingly

4. Would you reduce pensions for people already in role, or would it just be for new starters? I think that would dependent on the department review. If pensions for those departments are high and they are quite inefficient then a pension alteration  maybe needed across those those departments for all staff. With good quality staff getting increased remuneration- this will minimise the impact on them. 

5. If everyone currently in role, how would you bridge that gap? Sorry don’t understand 

 

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?

Edited 9 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[The Kraken]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I have identified areas departments  where savings could potentially be made. There are a number of departments which are know to be more inefficient. To identify the precise level of saving you need a review of those departments. I obviously can’t do that from my living room, neither can you say they are efficient for the same reason.

My point is that there are efficiencies savings to be made (posters on here and Starmer has admitted to this) but that this hasn’t been targeted to minimise tax increases. That was my point all along and I fail to see that it’s controversial 

You simply haven’t, or at least nothing I’ve seen. You’ve said things like “the MOD” but no specifics whatsoever. If I’m wrong and I’m missed them then please do re-post them. But I’ve never seen anything specific from you at all.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

Nobody can put a figure on it until it’s reviewed by the government. That would be stupid for me to suggest a figure.
 

There obviously are efficiency savings to be made (as you have agreed this) so where are they? This has been my main point all along - why not make efficiency savings to minimise tax rises? It’s a principle point about the governments approach to the budget

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Nobody can put a figure on it until it’s reviewed by the government. That would be stupid for me to suggest a figure.
 

There obviously are efficiency savings to be made (as you have agreed this) so where are they? This has been my main point all along - why not make efficiency savings to minimise tax rises? It’s a principle point about the governments approach to the budget

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?

[Farmer Saint]

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?
 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

.

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[The Kraken]

14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There obviously are efficiency savings to be made (as you have agreed this) so where are they?

Don’t look now, but this is the exact question people ask you when you continually say that there are loads of efficiency savings to be made across the public service.

It seems like you almost don’t know what you’re talking about, other than making sweeping generalisations without specifics.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?

Well we agree both then that neither you nor I can put a figure on the savings but there are savings to be made.

I said that you could review the key departments within 18 months, that’s not the whole civil service necessarily but regardless the speed of review is down to the level of resource you want to put into it. If you prioritise spending cuts over taxes you would put resources into the assessment. Thats what I believe government should be doing. 

Keeping people in work artificially because you are worried about the consequences you have mentioned I would suggest is not something you support?

Neither you nor I are experts in the field so I looked up a report by the Policy exchange https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf

Look at what they say in section 4.6 - basically the same suggestion and reasoning in relation to public sector pensions

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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?
 

 

Without getting into a blow by blow on this - do you suggest we leave these people in roles being inefficient? The savings over next next 4 years of removing those people will be higher than the cost of removing them. Using your figures that is evident 

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Well we agree both then that neither you nor I can put a figure on the savings but there are savings to be made.

I said that you could review the key departments within 18 months, that’s not the whole civil service necessarily but regardless the speed of review is down to the level of resource you want to put into it. If you prioritise spending cuts over taxes you would put resources into the assessment. Thats what I believe government should be doing. 

Keeping people in work artificially because you are worried about the consequences you have mentioned I would suggest is not something you support?

Neither you nor I are experts in the field so I looked up a report by the Policy exchange https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf

Look at what they say in section 4.6 - basically the same suggestion and reasoning in relation to public sector pensions

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.

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Without getting into a blow by blow on this - do you suggest we leave these people in roles being inefficient? The savings over next next 4 years of removing those people will be higher than the cost of removing them

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

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Don’t look now, but this is the exact question people ask you when you continually say that there are loads of efficiency savings to be made across the public service.

It seems like you almost don’t know what you’re talking about, other than making sweeping generalisations without specifics.

Have a gander at the report written by specialists if you want to see what they have said about some of the things that I mentioned. Any thoughts about it? Are the suggestions made not possible?

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

Incorrect. I said that you could use some of the savings to better remunerate the better quality people. The rest would be savings.  

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Have a gander at the report written by specialists if you want to see what they have said about some of the things that I mentioned. Any thoughts about it? Are the suggestions made not possible?

Which report?

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Incorrect. I said that you could use some of the savings to better remunerate the better quality people. The rest would be savings.  

But are remunerating the people or the roles, because things like this have to be done at role level - everything works in pay grades, yeah?

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But are remunerating the people or the roles, because things like this have to be done at role level - everything works in pay grades, yeah?

You can promote the good ones into new pay grades if required. To summarise this situation:

1. You, me and Starmer and various think tanks believe spending savings can be made

2. I made some suggestions for savings that people disputed or challenged due to a lack of evidence. I’m not a civil servant so can’t provide full facts and figures. Neither can any of the posters on here. Coincidentally the specialist report I found does back up my suggestions with figures. So good evidence 

3. There are no good reasons that I can see not to make some spending cuts to minimise tax rises. Correct me if I’m wrong but the thing you mentioned was  it would cost money to get rid of people but actually over a relatively short period of time savings would be made. Also keeping people on artificially is a bad approach in general business terms

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Which report?

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf

Interesting quote at the start

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Beyond-Our-Means_.pdf

Do me favour, you insinuate you have read it, it’s 132 pages and it’s nearly 10pm on a Sunday night, I’m clearly not going to read all of that report.  Being as you seem to have read it all, which pages do I particularly need to read?

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Do me favour, you insinuate you have read it, it’s 132 pages and it’s nearly 10pm on a Sunday night, I’m clearly not going to read all of that report.  Being as you seem to have read it all, which pages do I particularly need to read?

Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are a good start. Also no need to be sarcastic - I’ve been polite to you

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph