Do you want to discuss boring politics? (48 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hot take: Reeves will fuck Starmer like Sunak fucked Johnson.

Starmer will keep his socks on. In all seriousness, this is the fear some of us had about Starmer, that he really would govern as he campaigned and not perform the major surgery the country needs.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Starmer will keep his socks on. In all seriousness, this is the fear some of us had about Starmer, that he really would govern as he campaigned and not perform the major surgery the country needs.

Its not just spending. They’re not going far enough on planning either. Just don’t think they’ll deliver on anything without an attitude change. And lack of delivery has killed the last four govts.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Its not just spending. They’re not going far enough on planning either. Just don’t think they’ll deliver on anything without an attitude change. And lack of delivery has killed the last four govts.

Well, the last four didn’t deliver because they ideologically believe in shrinking the state and diverting wealth to people who already have it.

 

[shmmeee]

Well, the last four didn’t deliver because they ideologically believe in shrinking the state and diverting wealth to people who already have it.

They didn’t deliver on their own terms. No one was voting Tory hoping for a socialist republic mate.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Hot take: Reeves will fuck Starmer like Sunak fucked Johnson.

This is the problem with having an entirely empty vessel as prime minister

 

[shmmeee]

This is the problem with having an entirely empty vessel as prime minister

This is the problem with the Treasury and having a treasury brained chancellor.

 

[tisza]

‘A government of service’

Chancellor Rachel Reeves to axe projects after review of finances

Chancellor to say previous government covered up shortfalls, but the Tories say she is paving way for tax rises.

www.bbc.co.uk

Same tune with every election. Opposition promises to fix things but then claims there isn't the money.
This time Labour didn't really have to do any sums as they were always going to walk the election as people just sick of Conservatives.
Every party says they'll sort out public sector waste - none succeed that well.
Every recent govt has overspent on external consultants - a bloated, increasingly inefficient Civil Service often to blame for that.
Taxes obviously going up.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Same tune with every election. Opposition promises to fix things but then claims there isn't the money.
This time Labour didn't really have to do any sums as they were always going to walk the election as people just sick of Conservatives.
Every party says they'll sort out public sector waste - none succeed that well.
Every recent govt has overspent on external consultants - a bloated, increasingly inefficient Civil Service often to blame for that.
Taxes obviously going up.

Last month:
Real change with Labour, Fully costed plans.

This month:
No change, can't afford it.

 

[clint van damme]

So by the end of their term we'll be in to 18/19 years of austerity, in the 6th biggest economy in the world where the top percentile keep increasing their wealth.
In the words of Johnny Rotten, 'ever had the feeling you've been cheated?'.

 

[wingy]

So by the end of their term we'll be in to 18/19 years of austerity, in the 6th biggest economy in the world where the top percentile keep increasing their wealth.
In the words of Johnny Rotten, 'ever had the feeling you've been cheated?'.

But at least a strong currency?

 

[shmmeee]

Last month:
Real change with Labour, Fully costed plans.

This month:
No change, can't afford it.

They think it makes them look strong and serious. Same as the 2CB policy.

At some point you’ve got to govern and not just virtue signal.

 

[fernandopartridge]

This is the problem with the Treasury and having a treasury brained chancellor.

I hate to say I told you so

 

[fernandopartridge]

Same tune with every election. Opposition promises to fix things but then claims there isn't the money.
This time Labour didn't really have to do any sums as they were always going to walk the election as people just sick of Conservatives.
Every party says they'll sort out public sector waste - none succeed that well.
Every recent govt has overspent on external consultants - a bloated, increasingly inefficient Civil Service often to blame for that.
Taxes obviously going up.

The civil service buys more and more consultancy because it has less and less of its own resource.

 

[Nick]

So to sum it up, when people were on here getting excited about a new dawn, nothing is actually going to change?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So to sum it up, when people were on here getting excited about a new dawn, nothing is actually going to change?

Well, two people were.

 

[Evo1883]

 

[wingy]

Could never achieve that level of sheen!

 

[shmmeee]

I hate to say I told you so

Still better on the Tories by a lot, so still the right govt. but such a shame to see them shoot themselves in the foot. I think Reeves really believes this stuff. Proof will be in the pudding but as the saying goes if you do what you’ve always done you’ll get what you always got. I don’t see a route to growth that doesn’t include infrastructure investment.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Still better on the Tories by a lot, so still the right govt. but such a shame to see them shoot themselves in the foot. I think Reeves really believes this stuff. Proof will be in the pudding but as the saying goes if you do what you’ve always done you’ll get what you always got. I don’t see a route to growth that doesn’t include infrastructure investment.

Agreed. The cuts to the other projects shrink the economy - surely she knows this?

The proposal to cut the HS2 link to Euston is just batty.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Still very early days and got to give them the term to see what improvements are made. I still think just the stability will lead to some growth and minor improvement in public finances as long as they don’t do anything silly to dissuade investment

Strange to cut infrastructure projects when focussing so heavily on growth though (which is essential if we want a better public services, improvement in public and personal finances etc)

 

[fernandopartridge]

The economy is built on confidence and Reeves actions inspire the opposite. Who'd want to invest in the UK when the government isn't interested in doing so?

 

[CCFCSteve]

The economy is built on confidence and Reeves actions inspire the opposite. Who'd want to invest in the UK when the government isn't interested in doing so?

Just not having the merry go round of PMs and senior ministerial positions will help. Not sure talking it down when it’s on the turn is wise though

 

[Diogenes]

The civil service buys more and more consultancy because it has less and less of its own resource.

Can speak to this - the government has been trying to reduce headcount to "save money" but they fill the gaps with agency staff and consultants.

Often you see consultants doing the same job that was previously done by a civil servants on £15 an hour now being done by a consultant on £300-400 per day.

It's such an extortionate waste of money yet because consultants or agency staff aren't civil servants they aren't part of that headcount reduction. So the government is able to cook the books and say "we saved X amount of money on civil servants salaries by bringing down the number or civil servants". When in reality they are throwing far more money to get the same job done by non civil servants. It's a joke.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Can speak to this - the government has been trying to reduce headcount to "save money" but they fill the gaps with agency staff and consultants.

Often you see consultants doing the same job that was previously done by a civil servants on £15 an hour now being done by a consultant on £300-400 per day.

It's such an extortionate waste of money yet because consultants or agency staff aren't civil servants they aren't part of that headcount reduction. So the government is able to cook the books and say "we saved X amount of money on civil servants salaries by bringing down the number or civil servants". When in reality they are throwing far more money to get the same job done by non civil servants. It's a joke.

It's been going on years, other tricks are paying for consultants from 'programme' budgets rather than 'admin' budgets, all just an illusion.

 

[Nick]

Can speak to this - the government has been trying to reduce headcount to "save money" but they fill the gaps with agency staff and consultants.

Often you see consultants doing the same job that was previously done by a civil servants on £15 an hour now being done by a consultant on £300-400 per day.

It's such an extortionate waste of money yet because consultants or agency staff aren't civil servants they aren't part of that headcount reduction. So the government is able to cook the books and say "we saved X amount of money on civil servants salaries by bringing down the number or civil servants". When in reality they are throwing far more money to get the same job done by non civil servants. It's a joke.

Still remember when I worked in a school when it was run by the council. I offered to do plenty of stuff that was within my skillset, I was on a shocking wage. No. They wanted to pay an external consultant hundreds to do it (who still asked for help anyway).

They would buy stuff from particular companies where it was 3 times the price of everywhere else.

Makes you wonder their links to these consultants.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Still remember when I worked in a school when it was run by the council. I offered to do plenty of stuff that was within my skillset, I was on a shocking wage. No. They wanted to pay an external consultant hundreds to do it (who still asked for help anyway).

They would buy stuff from particular companies where it was 3 times the price of everywhere else.

Makes you wonder their links to these consultants.

It's a way of diluting ownership of decisions - get a consultancy to tell us what we already know and tell us to do what we already intended to do.

 

[Nick]

It's a way of diluting ownership of decisions - get a consultancy to tell us what we already know and tell us to do what we already intended to do.

And pay them silly money for it.

 

[MalcSB]

The civil service buys more and more consultancy because it has less and less of its own resource.

The civil service has plenty of resource, just not of the required quality.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The civil service has plenty of resource, just not of the required quality.

Well you know the saying, pay peanuts...

 

[Diogenes]

The civil service has plenty of resource, just not of the required quality.

There are plenty of really capable people, the problem is keeping hold of them.

Below inflation pay deals over the last decade has seen real time pay cuts of 15-20%, and without pay progression civil servants are chasing promotion or moving to the private sector.

A good bunch of those left behind then are those that are, not so capable.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The civil service has plenty of resource, just not of the required quality.

Should have hired me when I applied last year…

 

[shmmeee]

There are plenty of really capable people, the problem is keeping hold of them.

Below inflation pay deals over the last decade has seen real time pay cuts of 15-20%, and without pay progression civil servants are chasing promotion or moving to the private sector.

A good bunch of those left behind then are those that are, not so capable.

Its like this across public services TBF. Anyone with anything about them to earn more, be it consultancy, moving to agency work, or leaving for a new profession, has done if they haven’t got iron strong commitment to public service.

 

[tisza]

Can speak to this - the government has been trying to reduce headcount to "save money" but they fill the gaps with agency staff and consultants.

Often you see consultants doing the same job that was previously done by a civil servants on £15 an hour now being done by a consultant on £300-400 per day.

It's such an extortionate waste of money yet because consultants or agency staff aren't civil servants they aren't part of that headcount reduction. So the government is able to cook the books and say "we saved X amount of money on civil servants salaries by bringing down the number or civil servants". When in reality they are throwing far more money to get the same job done by non civil servants. It's a joke.

civil service employment numbers up around 130,000 (35%) since 2016. Govts keep talking about reducing numbers but haven't got it through. This Govt may well raise taxes but good luck collecting them with the current work backlog and the fact still around half HMRC employees are still working from home.

 

[fernandopartridge]

civil service employment numbers up around 130,000 (35%) since 2016. Govts keep talking about reducing numbers but haven't got it through. This Govt may well raise taxes but good luck collecting them with the current work backlog and the fact still around half HMRC employees are still working from home.

You talk about it being 'bloated' so what do you think the correct number is and why?

UK is below the OECD average: Share of people employed in government by country 2019 | Statista

 

[skybluetony176]

civil service employment numbers up around 130,000 (35%) since 2016. Govts keep talking about reducing numbers but haven't got it through. This Govt may well raise taxes but good luck collecting them with the current work backlog and the fact still around half HMRC employees are still working from home.

I think they’ve been mainly caused by Brexit though, replacing bureaucrats in Brussels with bureaucrats in the UK and to do the extra bureaucracy caused by Brexit.

After the 2010 spending review we lost over a 100K civil servants right up to 2016. We’ve not necessarily been reinstating the jobs lost to austerity.

There’s also no measurable loss in productivity at the HMRC through working from home. Whatever issues HMRC is having there’s no evidence that it’s due to WFH. Even the Tories couldn’t fudge the figures to prove it regardless of what the likes of Rees-Mogg were claiming while in government. The official figure is 57% of HMRC staff by the way, it also doesn’t mean that they never go into the office, it actually means that they go in 3 days a week and WFH the other 2.