To wonder why civil service haters don't understand that cutting 10,000 jobs is going to hurt everyone

So funny! You do realise that international tax planning is international. No matter how brilliant you find a tax expert, they'll have no jurisdiction over every different country nor tax haven. They could come up with brilliant ideas, but if the politicians can't persuade Isle of Man, Panama, Switzerland to do the same, it's all a waste of time. Do you really think that governments over the past 20-30 years didn't want to tackle it? In fact, there are international committees trying to tackle it and making slow progress. After all, the only way to "persuade" an island tax haven to give up tax haven status is to bribe them, nuke them or invade them!

Do you remember the good times before Brexit well you voted to come out of it. Deal with it

I work in a Govt organisation. We were agile and got stuff done, we were directed to recruit. We are now too slow in our delivery because the additional processes these people bring apparently equals improvement. Fail

Yes, by "attracting" I did mean offering a competitive rate.

5000 new tax inspectors can tackle the huge growing black economy and help tackle money laundering, modern slavery, etc. The tax authorities should never have been cut so savagely in the first place as it's one area of the public sector that actually generates income by controlling tax evasion, benefit fraud, etc. Bring it on. The last time any of my clients had a proper tax enquiry was over 20 years ago! Prior to that a small business could expect some kind of tax inspector enquiry/visit every few years, sometimes a VAT inspection, sometimes an income tax enquiry, sometimes a PAYE check. All disappeared because of Brown's amalgamation of the different tax departments and then wholesale redundancies of qualified/experienced tax inspectors when local tax offices were closed down. Bring it on. My only comment is that 5,000 isn't enough.

It’s all well and good cutting jobs in bloated services but what they need is a really good plan in place for what’s going to happen when they have fewer workers. Anyone can save money by slashing the workforce but it’s a false economy if the people you have left are left to pick up the pieces with no clear plan as to how.

I seriously doubt there’s a good plan in place. It’ll be short term gain resulting in longer term pain.

@Everythingisnumbersnow
I'm a former civil servant who took redundancy 18 months ago.
I was in and around the CS and quangos for over 30 years. I've had jobs where I was run off my feet and doing the work of 2 or 3, jobs where I was ticking along nicely - enough to do but not overworked, and jobs where the team was overstaffed. I was most definitely not needed in my last role.
10,000 in an workforce of half a million is not a lot. There will be depts, units, teams where losing staff will be difficult, others really need to think about what they are doing and how to do it more efficiently and effectively and losing a few staff here and there won't make any difference to delivery of services.
What the civil service needs to do is get the right people in the right jobs in the right place. Some depts are better than others at doing that.
It's not like closing a mine, or a large factory in a small town where they are the main employers.
Over the years I've seen multiple rounds of redundancies, I've never known anyone go who didn't want to.

Times are tough, I don't think we can expect the civil service not to take its share of the pain

That’s one way to win people over to your viewpoint. It would help if you wrote some context as you say nothing about what this is about.

If you are referring to the end of NHS England, public sector seems quite a loose description as the explainer article I just read said that even previous Conservative ministers had complained that NHS England was preventing them from directly managing the NHS. That fact seems crucial as the Covid enquiry will undoubtedly recommend that for future pandemics there will need to be better ministerial oversight of provisions.

Are you going to put me straight then or just patronise me?

Yes if people get made redundant they look for another job. We have savings at home

I work in public service.

I would prefer less CS but in doing that making sure that those in post are specialised and experienced in their role.

I meet with too many young ‘policy advisers’, advising on education policy. Other than going to school themselves they really don't have the experience.

It would be much better if the CS policy adviser had actually worked in education.

I work for the civil service - I work with a lot of people who have been in the department for 30+ years and will happily take redundancy. It won’t be cheap.
Regarding flexi - we don’t really get paid overtime unless prearranged (eg work a Saturday on top of the 5 days). I frequently work through breaks - I have to get in early to stay on top of my workload. I have to submit a flexi sheet to my manager. I moved from the private sector - the civil service get their pound of flesh.

I’m flabbergasted that some people seem to seriously think anybody, but especially the civil service, should employ unnecessary staff so that “more people have money to spend”. It shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of basic economics.

Having worked in both public and private sectors the public sector is in general highly bloated and inefficient. I’m sure there are pockets where people work extremely hard and more staff are needed to deliver essential services, but it’s certainly the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately as with all these headlines I suspect the reality will be significantly watered down.

The savings made by cutting NHS England will not be shared amongst providers. ICBs also have to cut 50%. No more bail outs for providers who overspend was also the message.

None of that means the money will be spent elsewhere. You just made that up. Redistribution of existing money and no more new money are entirely consistent.

It’s headline stuff. And over two years. So a lot won’t be made redundant but found jobs elsewhere as people leave

Also as those people within NHS England leave they won’t be replaceD

There will be a lot of natural wastage

OP, those civil service workers could be redeployed to be more productive and increase GDP.

For example, we are a British manufacturer. We need drivers, sales people and foreign language administrators in order to grow. We earn international revenue that contributes to GDP.

The redeployed workers would still have money to spend in the UK economy, the public purse would not be paying their wages, they would still be paying tax and a British exporter could generate more revenues.

Whatever you think about the Civil Service and NHS England, if you listen to Wes speaking, he is actually saying there will be no more money for the NHS. The savings made by cutting NHS England will not be shared amongst providers. ICBs also have to cut 50%. No more bail outs for providers who overspend was also the message. Anything saved is going elsewhere, it is smokes and mirrors to think it will be invested into NHS services.

Apart from the fact he's sticking to Tory fiscal rules, funded by Tory donors, backed by the former blue Labour group, purged the left, banned MPs from joining pickets, rolled back at least 10 of his pledges, etc it's his vacuous Tory face that gives it away.

Oh give over. It's long overdue (understatement of the year) about bloody time. Maybe the NHS can be repaired (a little)

I’m not sure what the department of education does. I think there is about 6500 of them. They could retrain as maths and science teachers.

I know people who work in the civil service and the amount of flexi time they build up is amazing, it’s like no one checks what they’re doing?! Another WFH and half of the time doesn’t even start on time, finishes early, rolls into the office when pleases, no one seems to check. I’m sure all departments aren’t like this but it does strike me as very mismanaged, it could run so much more efficiently.

Not real tax, ffs. 😂

We won’t be seeing 10,000 people going from being workers to being forcefully unemployed.

10,000 jobs will be cut, but most will be from retirees, people leaving for other jobs naturally, or voluntary redundancies.

NHSE has long been little more than a duplicate of work done elsewhere. Some of its important work can be absorbed into the DHSC, others can just stop happening.

But overall. NHSE represents 1% or less of total NHS workforce so the impact overall, whilst not nil, will be very small.

Depends where the cuts are. My department is on its knees with lack of staff to support our service users - cuts to us will impact the public as it makes us less effective (MOJ). Our department needs more staff if anything. I think our allocated cuts are being made strategically so operational staff aren’t directly impacted though.

The Civil Service is huge, it's not just HMRC. DWP, DVLA, ACAS, Home Office, Border Control, The Treasury I think are some of the biggest departments. Employing tax inspectors, who identify tax avoidance and bring in money, are probably the most cost effective Civil Servants in the country. They'll bring in xxx£K more than they're paid.