The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[egg]

1 minute 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?

I can't believe you're persevering. He's not specific about anything because he doesn't know what he's talking about. 

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I can't believe you're persevering. He's not specific about anything because he doesn't know what he's talking about. 

You have to be taking the Michael. I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me?
 

 

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 Sunday at 22:08 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I can't believe you're persevering. He's not specific about anything because he doesn't know what he's talking about. 

We both know this.

He has at least pointed to a report that on first overview doesn’t really support any of his previous arguments though. In fact it just reiterates his whole ‘savings savings savings it’s easy’ nonsense.  It’s kind of funny to watch him go though.

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

We both know this.

He has at least pointed to a report that on first overview doesn’t really support any of his previous arguments though. In fact it just reiterates his whole ‘savings savings savings it’s easy’ nonsense.  It’s kind of funny to watch him go though.

It’s funny watching you lot not respond to my questions now. I’ll copy and paste the question I put to @egg just now. You’ve made some general comment about the report with nothing specific and no evidence to back your position. So please explain? 
 

I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me?
 

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 Sunday at 22:19 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

We both know this.

He has at least pointed to a report that on first overview doesn’t really support any of his previous arguments though. In fact it just reiterates his whole ‘savings savings savings it’s easy’ nonsense.  It’s kind of funny to watch him go though.

The report is interesting to the least. Delegate PiP type payments to local authorities, replace defined benefit state pensions with defined contribution schemes, all but abandon SEND kids. I gave up after that. Ralph has obviously swallowed that. 

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You have to be taking the Michael. I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me?
 

 

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

 

As Kraken has said, and I've said previously, you just give vague waffle mate. You ignore questions. I'm ignoring you. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

As Kraken has said, and I've said previously, you just give vague waffle mate. You ignore questions. I'm ignoring you. 

You’re ignoring me because you can’t actually back up your stance anymore. You’re trying to slip out of it. Which questions did I not answer? This is the frustrating thing with this forum. Evidence or people with much more informed judgements than us are just ignored by the band of brothers (as evidenced again earlier today) so what is the point?

Edited Sunday at 22:24 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

It’s not even interesting it’s just appalling waffle. 

I doubt Ralph has even read it, let alone has understood its consequences. Or even could. 

 

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s not even interesting it’s just appalling waffle. 

I doubt Ralph has even read it, let alone has understood its consequences. Or even could. 

 

So no answer again. What parts of it are incorrect and why? You even asked me to point you to the report parts which I did and I get this non response. Informed views and evidence are ignored to maintain a partisan approach.

The background of the authors is here so they are clearly experienced and have worked in government. If a discussion ends with people ignoring the views (with no contrary)of more informed people than them, then that says a lot

Edited Sunday at 22:35 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So no answer again. What parts of it are incorrect and why? You even asked me to point you to the report parts which I did and I get this non response. Informed views and evidence are ignored to maintain a partisan approach.

Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with. Don’t just say “look at this section”, that is a complete cop out.

You're the one claiming that savings need to be made, so you’re the one that needs to be specific. You’ve utterly failed to do that so far, other than point to a multi page report that is no more than a simplistic overview for easily led simpletons  

 

Edited Sunday at 22:35 by The Kraken

[Sir Ralph]

14 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with. Don’t just say “look at this section”, that is a complete cop out.

You're the one claiming that savings need to be made, so you’re the one that needs to be specific. You’ve utterly failed to do that so far, other than point to a multi page report that is no more than a simplistic overview for easily led simpletons  

 

I’ll give them to you. I’m not the only one claiming inefficiency. Starmer said the same (as posted before). Is he wrong too? What are your thoughts on this? @egg what do you think about this?

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

Edited Sunday at 22:49 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

I’m repeating myself because you keep avoiding the question.

Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with.

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I’m repeating myself because you keep avoiding the question.

Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with.

Yes I’ve read the relevant sections I was interested in. I also mentioned quangos.  It will take a bit of time to summarise . Can I ask why you need this to confirm whether you agree with Starmer or not? The two are independent views.

Edited Sunday at 23:02 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes I’ve read the relevant sections I was interested in. I also mentioned quangos.  It will take a bit of time to summarise . Can I ask why you need this to confirm whether you agree with Starmer or not? The two are independent views.

I don’t agree with Starmer per se. I’m asking you to provide specifics of things you claim. It’s two different things.

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don’t agree with Starmer per se. I’m asking you to provide specifics of things you claim. It’s two different things.

Ok that’s fine. I agree they are two independent views, albeit they can both be correct.

Why don’t you agree with him? I’m assuming the figures he quoted were provided by government officials. What evidence do you have he is wrong on these figures?

Edited Sunday at 23:07 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok that’s fine. Why don’t you agree with him? I’m assuming the figures he quoted were provided by government officials. What evidence do you have he is wrong?

Stop answering questions with questions. Provide an answer.

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Stop answering questions with questions.

Unless the question is: Do you know any good questions?

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Stop answering questions with questions. Provide an answer.

If I am going to spend time giving my response will you share your evidence as to why Starmer is wrong? I find that I always answer questions and nobody gives a response with any evidence. If you just want to get a reply from me to just critique it, that’s boring, if you aren’t going to answer questions about your own position

Edited Sunday at 23:19 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

If I give my response will you share your evidence as to why Starmer is wrong? I find that I always answer questions and nobody gives a response with any evidence. If you just want to get a reply from me to just critique it, that’s boring, if you aren’t going to answer questions about your own position

You haven’t answered much yet mush.

Same question again. Give me a breakdown of the policies in the report you agree with. It should be quite simple to do if you’ve read it.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

You haven’t answered much yet mush.

Same question again. Give me a breakdown of the policies in the report you agree with. It should be quite simple to do if you’ve read it.

I said I would give you the breakdown which I will. 
 

I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to confirm you will subsequently respond with evidence as to why Starmer is wrong…..unless you have no evidence? You seem to be avoiding this hiding behind “just answer my questions”. I appreciate evidence can be problematic in some circumstances but it’s normally helpful in getting to the truth

Edited Sunday at 23:22 by Sir Ralph

[The Kraken]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I said I would give you the breakdown which I will. 
 

I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to confirm you will subsequently respond with evidence as to why Starmer is wrong…..unless you have no evidence? You seem to be avoiding this hiding behind “just answer my questions”.

Go right ahead, you answer my question and I’ll answer yours

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

So no answer again. What parts of it are incorrect and why? You even asked me to point you to the report parts which I did and I get this non response. Informed views and evidence are ignored to maintain a partisan approach.

The background of the authors is here so they are clearly experienced and have worked in government. If a discussion ends with people ignoring the views (with no contrary)of more informed people than them, then that says a lot

Policy Exchange are a right wing 'think tank' which refuses to reveal the sources of it's funding, is reckoned to be one of the "least transparent" such groups in UK politics, and the Daily Telegraph called it "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right".

It is likely that their assessment of the state of Public Services, and how to develop them in the future, is coloured by their political alignment, and almost certainly doesn't fit the 'unbiased' claim they make for their work.

 

Edited Monday at 00:07 by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

Go right ahead, you answer my question and I’ll answer yours

In terms of this report, I dont necessarily believe that all of the savings can be made. I used the report as evidence that a well known think-tank had overlap with some of the things I suggested. I mentioned a number of possible saving areas, in addition to public sector savings. One of these being welfare. The parts of the report which were most relevant to what I mentioned are below:

1. Welfare - this has already been well publicised but I particularly agree with the comments around cutting disability benefits as this is often abused. The Government's idea around cutting benefits for people who dont accept job offers is also a good one, in my opinion. 

2. NHS - from speaking to family members and friends in the NHS, the management hierarchy is heavy in their opinion. I dont work in it so I can't comment but a streamlining of management in these areas would, based on their feedback, help to make decision making simpler without impacting operational ability and reduce the wage bill. The Government should provide tax breaks for those with private health care to encourage take up which could, on balance, reduce the burden on the public purse, which could be another overall saving. 

Whilst this wouldnt be a saving as such, I would also charge for appointments as I believe that the system is abused by people. Yes, there will be an impact on some but I fear that unless the system is changed to discourage abuse then the NHS will be in trouble financially (more so than it is now) without a change. This would generate additional income and reduce pressure.

3. Civil Service - in some instances, cuts will not be possible particularly for frontline staff. However, there is again the possibility to remove management and administration type roles in some departments, which I have experience of people saying are inefficient having worked for or worked with them. Their complaint is that the view tends to be that an output is writing a report but that there is little action in terms of real results achieved. This includes the MoD and the Home Office. As I said before, a review of all departments should be undertaken and where inefficiencies are found, redundancies made and some of the savings used to increase pay for good staff, alongside pension changes.

4. Quangos - my experience of working with some quangos is that they are often unhelpful, overly bureaucratic and hinder business. The roles of some of these quangos could be reduced or the quangos removed altogether to make savings. I would particularly focus on environmental quangos, some unsuccessful transport quangos and the HSE. If I have experience of some of the quangos I might encounter being inefficient, I'm sure there are many more.

What i dont understand is that we have a Conservative think tank and a Labour PM both saying that there are inefficiencies and savings can be made. Even if I'm wrong on my suggestions as I am not a specialist, doesnt the fact they both say this not matter?

Edited Monday at 00:24 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Policy Exchange are a right wing 'think tank' which refuses to reveal the sources of it's funding, is reckoned to be one of the "least transparent" such groups in UK politics, and the Daily Telegraph called it "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right".

It is likely that their assessment of the state of Public Services, and how to develop them in the future, is coloured by their political alignment, and almost certainly doesn't fit the 'unbiased' claim they make for their work.

 

I agree they are conservative in nature. Does that mean all their ideas are wrong though?

As I continue to mention, Starmer also says that there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed - is he also wrong?

So a right leaning think tank and a Labour PM are saying the same thing in principle. What does this tell you?

I will accept paying more taxes, if absolutely necessary, but dont believe its fair to do so when efficiencies can be made first. 

Edited Monday at 00:22 by Sir Ralph

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, egg said:

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. 

No it isn't.  Never has been. The older generations have paid for it.

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

Or had the required amount of NI credits for being on benefits.

[egg]

5 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No it isn't.  Never has been. The older generations have paid for it.

We've all built up our qualifying years Whitey, and paid our dues expecting a state pension. That doesn't alter that the state pension is part of the welfare system, and is of benefit to many of the people who receive it. It also doesn't alter that we can't afford it, and I'm not calling for it to be means tested, but I think it will be down the line. 

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No it isn't.  Never has been. The older generations have paid for it.

It is a benefit and it always has been.

The state pension today is being paid for by the workers today.

 

[Farmer Saint]

So after all this, have we worked out how much we're planning to cut from the public sector?

Edited Monday at 12:54 by Farmer Saint

[Saint Fan CaM]

19 hours 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.

What kind of privileged blinkered world do you live in? Just because some had enough disposable salary to invest in a private pension, doesn’t mean everyone did. Are you so fucking heartless that you’d be happy seeing people, who had paid into the system all their working lives, live in poverty at the expense of dogmatic bat shit crazy left-wing policies?

That’s really wonderful that your privileged parents and in-laws are able to give away their state pension which I suspect they considered a ‘pittance’ - I’m sure that makes you feel warm inside.  For many that’s ALL they get to live on. Yes, there’s greed in society - let’s start means testing private bankers, utility company bosses, private landlords…the list goes on and on. To blanket crucify pensioners by eroding all pensions with the removal of triple lock is morally repugnant.

[Wade Garrett]

17 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

You have to be taking the Michael. I’ve set out a number of ways savings could be made earlier this week and then backed that up with a report! If you disagree with the figures in the report with evidence then fine, but otherwise I’m not sure what you are going on about. As I mentioned before - a summary of this situation is below. Where do you disagree with me?
 

 

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

 

Just tell the civil servants that they can't work from home and a lot of the piss-takers will leave for nothing.

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Just because some had enough disposable salary to invest in a private pension, doesn’t mean everyone did

You know employers pension are not uncommon. Would be very weird to have worked your whole life and only have a state pension 

[Sir Ralph]

 

 

18 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Go right ahead, you answer my question and I’ll answer yours

Can you please tell me why Starmer is wrong and there are no savings to be had? @egg still hasn’t responded to this either. Remember evidence is important.

Edited Monday at 17:33 by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Just tell the civil servants that they can't work from home and a lot of the piss-takers will leave for nothing.

You know lots of people don’t work with their hands these days

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Just tell the civil servants that they can't work from home and a lot of the piss-takers will leave for nothing.

I actually think they should. If you think it’s too much to go into the office 3-4 days a week minimum then you aren’t sufficiently committed to your job anyway

Edited Monday at 17:41 by Sir Ralph

[Baird of the land]

From a party that's struggled to complete any sort of cut comes yet more spending it seems.

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I actually think they should. If you think it’s too much to go into the office 3-4 days a week minimum then you aren’t sufficiently committed to your job anyway

There is no reason why many office based workers cannot work from home for the majority of the working week, with the savings in office accommodation costs that go with it.

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There is no reason why many office based workers cannot work from home for the majority of the working week, with the savings in office accommodation costs that go with it.

Netflix takes a bashing in this scenario

[Sir Ralph]

29 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There is no reason why many office based workers cannot work from home for the majority of the working week, with the savings in office accommodation costs that go with it.

There is if they aren’t sufficiently accountable to put in a good shift each day.

Why are the majority of businesses now making people come into the office for the majority of the week? They know it’s required to improve learning from colleagues and to maximise output.
 

The public sector must not be any different. If anything it’s more accountable as it is using the public purse.

Edited Monday at 18:23 by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

This place seems ever more riddled with pub bores who can’t cope with world changing, and want it to be back to how it was when they thought they had relevance 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

This place seems ever more riddled with pub bores who can’t cope with world changing, and want it to be back to how it was when they thought they had relevance 

You mean people who disagree with you

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There is if they aren’t sufficiently accountable to put in a good shift each day.

Why are the majority of businesses now making people come into the office for the majority of the week? They know it’s required to improve learning from colleagues and to maximise output.
 

The public sector must not be any different. If anything it’s more accountable as it is using the public purse.

There are no technical or social reasons why remote or hybrid working cannot be the norm for many office jobs. The biggest obstacle is managers who think they are 'losing control'.

Edited Monday at 18:48 by badgerx16

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There are no technical or social reasons why remote or hybrid working cannot be the norm for many office jobs. The biggest obstacle is managers who think they are 'losing control'.

I have managers who work for me and they in turn have managers. If I thought they were only motivated to perform if their colleagues eyes were on them we’d be fucked. Quite hectic at the fried chicken shop

[whelk]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You mean people who disagree with you

Not at all. I am not as left wing as you assume btw

And just to add we have dealt with non-attendance to the office when designated as performance issues.

Edited Monday at 18:55 by whelk

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I actually think they should. If you think it’s too much to go into the office 3-4 days a week minimum then you aren’t sufficiently committed to your job anyway

You can’t be “committed”to your job as you spend 90% of you life on here

[Lord Duckhunter]

You’ve got to be a bit weird if you want to work from home. 

[Farmer Saint]

6 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

What kind of privileged blinkered world do you live in? Just because some had enough disposable salary to invest in a private pension, doesn’t mean everyone did. Are you so fucking heartless that you’d be happy seeing people, who had paid into the system all their working lives, live in poverty at the expense of dogmatic bat shit crazy left-wing policies?

That’s really wonderful that your privileged parents and in-laws are able to give away their state pension which I suspect they considered a ‘pittance’ - I’m sure that makes you feel warm inside.  For many that’s ALL they get to live on. Yes, there’s greed in society - let’s start means testing private bankers, utility company bosses, private landlords…the list goes on and on. To blanket crucify pensioners by eroding all pensions with the removal of triple lock is morally repugnant.

Sorry, where did I say that we shouldn't have a state pension? 

[Gloucester Saint]

23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve got to be a bit weird if you want to work from home. 

Generational thing. People that are retiring now or retired had the vast majority of their career pre-Skype and especially Zoom/Teams and pre cheaper laptops and mobiles would naturally think that. Personally, I enjoy having a hybrid set up. All WFH I’d find very isolating but one or two days per week of a 7.45 instead of 6am alarm is very welcome. And last week I was on site all 5 days because that was business need and what the team needed.

Not having to sit in heavy traffic and/or trains packed like sardines all week is good. And for those who work in the public sector, it cuts costs when they aren’t getting the pay rises or bonuses I’d imagine.

Most customers want to meet/deal online since Covid. For the 3/4 days I’m usually in, I like my days very busy and active, loads of interactions. I hate just sitting staring at a screen for 8 hours unless it’s a very focused all day task.

 

Edited Monday at 21:29 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Generational thing. People that are retiring now or retired had the vast majority of their career pre-Skype and especially Zoom/Teams and pre cheaper laptops and mobiles would naturally think that. Personally, I enjoy having a hybrid set up. All WFH I’d find very isolating but one or two days per week of a 7.45 instead of 6am alarm is very welcome. And last week I was on site all 5 days because that was business need and what the team needed.

Not having to sit in heavy traffic and/or trains packed like sardines all week is good. And for those who work in the public sector, it cuts costs when they aren’t getting the pay rises or bonuses I’d imagine.

Most customers want to meet/deal online since Covid. For the 3/4 days I’m usually in, I like my days very busy and active, loads of interactions. I hate just sitting staring at a screen for 8 hours unless it’s a very focused all day task.

My usual job is mostly office based, but I'd get a hell of a lot more done if I was remote or hybrid. No distractions at home, and I can just get my head down. Meetings can be done by teams, zoom or phone, but give people a genuine choice, most want face to face in my experience. 

Before I sold out of my business, most recruits (particularly youngsters) wanted a flexible hybrid option. Any service or office based business that's unwilling to offer that will struggle to recruit. 

Public service can be operated away from office environments to a very large extent. The costs savings of reduced office space could be massive too, and the government is sitting on a lot of superfluous high value real estate. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve got to be a bit weird if you want to work from home. 

Talking of old fossils not adapting. Although surprised this fella is still working with all his stories of working in the 70s and knowing Alf Ramsey