As of late 2024/early 2025, the UK Civil Service employs approximately 543,000 to 548,000 people (headcount), representing a two-decade high and a 21% increase since 2019.
You could have a “bonfire of quangos” and still not save more than £100m.
If you regard £100 million as a rounding error, then of course its small change.
But you don't eat an elephant in one sitting. Just a start would signal intent.
Look at the way agricultural subsidies were dispensed with in 1984 New Zealand. Cries of woe & despair abounded, but today today, NZs agricultural productivity has quadrupled since the pre-reform era. The nation is one of the largest global exporters of dairy commodities, as well as beef, sheep meat, wool, fruits, vegetables, and wine. The sector is among the most competitive in the world—not thanks to superfluous subsidies, but because of smart, market-driven production.
Don't tell me the civil service can't be similarly reformed.
That doesn't contract my article at all. Like I said "I’m not saying there isn’t fat to trim. It’s just that you’re going to have to climb in and do the detail work to find it. "
Fair comment. The problem is that good governance is difficult. If it wasn't. everybody could do it. The precursor to change, therefore, requires that we accept that the process will be difficult and thus gear up with the capacity (and capability) to deal with the problems.
Unfortunately, the civil service as presently constituted believes it should be leading beyond authority. Until that mindset is changed, "gearing up to deal with the problem" is a cosplay
To survive, private companies have to embrace technology.
The civil service doesn’t have to .
I have worked in both sectors.
Working in shipping admin I saw vast numbers of clerical staff disappear.
Computers took away jobs in shipping so perhaps one in 20 jobs was left.
Adapting shipping work allowed computers to do much of the staffs tasks. Shipping companies had to adapt or go under.
Government computerisation looked to complicate.
computers allowed them to do more, offer more benefits and if that meant taking on staff it helped to increase employment figures. A completely different prioritisation to private industry.
I worked in tax credits and saw the move from personal cases to computers doing the job and an increase in staff because the government wanted more tasks to be added.
It’s also true that failure is rewarded, in the civil service as incompetence in management is rife, so promotion gets rid of poorly performing staff and transfers sideways also helps to get rid of mediocrity.
A government that arrives with a determination to reduce the claimant count, reduce management bands, increase managers personal responsibility and reward suggestions that save rather than spend more money, is long overdue.
There is massive savings to be found in the civil service - but initially there has to be a transfer of staff to immigration to sort out 30 years of terrible decision making.
That will take up a lot of slack in the civil service for a while but savings will still be made on payments to migrants.
Eventually civil service jobs will go as the migrant count drops and new jobs in manufacturing and other traditional sectors re-appear.
I would think the way forward would be to incentivise the people in employed in the public sector.Those doing the jobs will know what could be done better, quicker cheaper. “We need X dept to become more productive, reduce costs without loss of function and for every quid you save - you get 50p of it “ Try that then let’s see how the Mandarin class can think outside the box
I worked in banking and my experience was whenever we took a forensic look at every function we could justify everything. The most effective way was to impose a 10% budget cut across the board with only key activities such as lending or customer contact protected at say 3% cuts. We may not have achieved the full 10% but even a half of it was a very significant number.
There are numerous sayings about the need for detailed planning to ensure a successful outcome but I like this one: -
"Spectacular achievement is always preceded by unspectacular preparation." – Robert H. Schuller.
The trouble with our political class is they think they are too good to do the hard graft of unspectacular preparation.
Fail to plan, plan to fail is another one.
Indeed Google 'Sayings' about piss poor planning leads to piss poor performance and read the list of them all!
You could have a “bonfire of quangos” and still not save more than £100m.
If you regard £100 million as a rounding error, then of course its small change.
But you don't eat an elephant in one sitting. Just a start would signal intent.
Look at the way agricultural subsidies were dispensed with in 1984 New Zealand. Cries of woe & despair abounded, but today today, NZs agricultural productivity has quadrupled since the pre-reform era. The nation is one of the largest global exporters of dairy commodities, as well as beef, sheep meat, wool, fruits, vegetables, and wine. The sector is among the most competitive in the world—not thanks to superfluous subsidies, but because of smart, market-driven production.
Don't tell me the civil service can't be similarly reformed.
That doesn't contract my article at all. Like I said "I’m not saying there isn’t fat to trim. It’s just that you’re going to have to climb in and do the detail work to find it. "
I wasn't attempting to contradict your article.
I'm just saying that the "British Way" is to consider some courses of action difficult & therefore should not be attempted.
Until they are, we'll never know
Fair comment. The problem is that good governance is difficult. If it wasn't. everybody could do it. The precursor to change, therefore, requires that we accept that the process will be difficult and thus gear up with the capacity (and capability) to deal with the problems.
Unfortunately, the civil service as presently constituted believes it should be leading beyond authority. Until that mindset is changed, "gearing up to deal with the problem" is a cosplay
To survive, private companies have to embrace technology.
The civil service doesn’t have to .
I have worked in both sectors.
Working in shipping admin I saw vast numbers of clerical staff disappear.
Computers took away jobs in shipping so perhaps one in 20 jobs was left.
Adapting shipping work allowed computers to do much of the staffs tasks. Shipping companies had to adapt or go under.
Government computerisation looked to complicate.
computers allowed them to do more, offer more benefits and if that meant taking on staff it helped to increase employment figures. A completely different prioritisation to private industry.
I worked in tax credits and saw the move from personal cases to computers doing the job and an increase in staff because the government wanted more tasks to be added.
It’s also true that failure is rewarded, in the civil service as incompetence in management is rife, so promotion gets rid of poorly performing staff and transfers sideways also helps to get rid of mediocrity.
A government that arrives with a determination to reduce the claimant count, reduce management bands, increase managers personal responsibility and reward suggestions that save rather than spend more money, is long overdue.
There is massive savings to be found in the civil service - but initially there has to be a transfer of staff to immigration to sort out 30 years of terrible decision making.
That will take up a lot of slack in the civil service for a while but savings will still be made on payments to migrants.
Eventually civil service jobs will go as the migrant count drops and new jobs in manufacturing and other traditional sectors re-appear.
Wouldn't sacking all staff involved in DEI be a guaranteed win?
I would think the way forward would be to incentivise the people in employed in the public sector.Those doing the jobs will know what could be done better, quicker cheaper. “We need X dept to become more productive, reduce costs without loss of function and for every quid you save - you get 50p of it “ Try that then let’s see how the Mandarin class can think outside the box
I worked in banking and my experience was whenever we took a forensic look at every function we could justify everything. The most effective way was to impose a 10% budget cut across the board with only key activities such as lending or customer contact protected at say 3% cuts. We may not have achieved the full 10% but even a half of it was a very significant number.
Even if that means a 10% reduction in prison officers?
Obviously not. An overlay of common sense as I mentioned. Customer facing staff last to be hit.