Vocal Voices

Apparently we have 100,000 more civil servants than we did ten years since.
At some point this trend will have to be reversed; the state has to shrink a little.
For instance, do we need a Department of Culture,Media and Sport with a 10 billion pound budget? Why should the government be involved with sport or the media?

Or the Ministry of Justice (ho ho) which employs 70,000 civil servants, some of whom concentrate on "policy development" and "international justice"?

I don't think so. But what government will ever be brave enough to take the first step?

It always seems to me that the more bureaucracy you deploy, the less actually gets done .....

But aren't we supposed to be creating jobs under this Government, not reducing them?

Can I be Chairman of a new Quango called" Committee for Less Quangos" I should get a bonus of 50% for everyone I disband

Who wants to join?

The civil service hovered at about 380-400,000 people for decades after the war. Not surprising as everything was done by pen and paper, internal post and manual typewriters - it needed people.

Then came the 80s and 90s and the digital age - workstations, computers, networks, faxes, printers, emails - and they needed a whole new means of support. Enter the IT techies, and the whole thing kept on growing.

In 2009, when it was near 500,000, Labour had had enough and started to reduce the workforce and that kept on going to 2016 under the Conservatives when it was down to about 385,000. Then came the Referendum, Brexit, Covid and so on, and since then it has risen to today's high.

Today there are far too many admin and mangers in non-jobs - analysts, policy professionals, operational delivery professionals etc.

A good pruning would not go amiss.

Don't forget the Diversity Managers.

Have you counted the people who WFH

If they work from home, they don't need officer space or a desk. Huge savngs could bge made by selling theoffice buidings or using them to house immigrants.