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

[Everythingisnumbersnow]

I can't believe Labour is doing what they're doing

They all can get those highly paid jobs with enormous bonuses in private sector they all talk about believing in it. It justifies their demands for pay rises.

It was in response to a vague and totally pointless statement (ie one which effectively argued the reverse). Any argument commenting on the public sector as a whole versus the private sector as a whole is pointless.

I would expect volunteers for redundancy to cover some of the 10,000. So those who have other jobs to go to, or just retire a bit earlier than would have happened otherwise.

It won't be the equivalent of a steel works, a mine or a factory closure.

To the PP who says we need to pay their unemployment benefits. Well - no. They need to get another job. It’s not working for the CS and then going onto benefits!

Agree with this. But you do realise that getting rid of NHS England will in no way stop the recruitment and retention problems of NHSE staff? There's a real naivety happening that all or even any savings from getting rid of NHS England will go directly into frontline services.

I've worked for NHSE and its predecessors for well over 10 years. Things have to change. Some of the work done by NHS England is important, some of it is pointless. But let's not all suddenly think that our politicians are to be trusted with making this type of decision purely to improve patient care.

thats the thing if all businesses cut back to essential staff only then overall there is less money to go around then other companies will go under etc plus Ai, then companies importing goods, and outsourceing etc it all adds up its like the opposite when people say get more people working, but working doing excatly what ? especially when other businesses would not pay x workers unless they can make a profit, at some point or other people will be expandable assets

'Catastrophic'?! 10000 job losses is less than 0.03% of the working population. I am sorry you are getting slated on here as I recognise it could well be catastrophic for you and some of those who lose their jobs but for the population as a whole, it will go largely unnoticed.

I would hazard a guess that it is the unions that are spreading this 'world will end' type nonsense. I hope the public don't swallow it, we need to revolutionise the public sector and this is a start.

Usually mn is pro keeping civil service / public sector jobs so there's that, reading this thread

Wonder how many more cuts there will be

The problem with getting rid of lots of people is that it initially costs a lot of money to do it legally - you have to be able to afford to do it. The problem with getting rid of people when you have creaking infrastructure and need to invest hugely in technology to improve efficiency is that it costs money before you get the efficiency savings. There is no way of efficiently, legally and instantly saving money, despite the dire need to instantly save money and simultaneously become more efficient.

How is Keir Starmer basically a Tory?

And, of course, unlike the private sector, it is that state which bears the cost of any unemployment created. It’s much easier to hire and fire in the private sector, particularly to break the law doing so, because there is less political comeback from playing fast and loose with employment rights. The Government can’t be seen to break its own laws.

Which sectors of the civil service will be affected? Will it be DWP, cabinet office, home office, moj, ofgem?

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.

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.

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.

Not real tax, ffs. 😂

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.