What is this rhetoric concerning Rees-Mogg v civil service all about?

[Calafsidentity]

Am I missing something obvious? What's at the heart of it I mean? Can anyone who is a regular on the political threads, or anyone "in the know" , kindly explain to me what is going on please?

I always get anxious when there is talk of governmental interference with the civil service as they are all we have to rely on, when, as now, the elected government of the day is less than trustworthy and/ or incompetent.

Is it, as a recent Independent article implies, a ploy to distract the public from the fact that poor investment and low level resources, not to mention Covid plus Brexit, lie at the heart of most of the problems associated with passport, tax, DVLA delays, the prison service, asylum claims, and I imagine the number of civil servants required in the MoD has risen since Putin invaded Ukraine?

Or is it the fact that Rees-Smugg can't make a success of his post- Brexit promoting role simply because the reality is that Brexit is proving to be a disaster in terms of the economy and trade, so he is making headlines about something else?

Or is it, most worryingly for me, given Boris's lack of respect for the UK's system of government, and of the UK constitution as a whole, how he almost casually prorogued parliament, how he lies in the HofC, is there something more sinister going on?

[I am a long-term poster, interested in UK and EU politics, not a journo.]

I think it’s that attacking the Civil Service is much, much easier than facing up to the other top issues right now and he wants an easy way to look like he’s making an impact.

Also these things do go in cycles and the CS has been recruiting a lot for a while now, this will always go against JMR’s fundamental beliefs as he thinks the state should be as small as possible. So he does genuinely believe it is the right thing to do.

All of the above.
One of the fundamentals of the Tory party is the belief in a small state. But you can’t have public services without people to deliver them.
Of course you can privatise but they still need staff and someone is making a profit. Last year private companies made £300 million profit on the provision of children’s homes - thats £300m that could have gone into a service that it is dire straits.
The civil service, and local authorities, are easy targets, in the same way as its easy to have a go at teachers for their lovely long holidays.
The civil service is there to implement the policies of the government of the day, it doesn’t just come up with its own little wheezes to keep itself busy.
I also don’t think people really understand what the civil service does, the public perception is Whitehall - they don’t realise that things like the Coastguard and National Crime Agency are part of the civil service.
As for Jacob Rees Mogg, the civil service code of conduct prevents me from saying what I think, other than he is an idiot, without a job and is out to make ‘mischief’ . People like him don’t need the services he is out to destroy.

Both the above posters are spot on.

Plus to add into the mix that we are clearly heading into an election cycle, which usually means even more attacks on the civil service than normal. Unfortunately we can't speak out to defend ourselves, due to the civil service code.

Thank you onlywork55 , Ted27 and Sunnyshoeshine for these incredibly helpful responses.

Noted about upcoming elections!

And having had experience of living in countries where the state looms a little larger than than it does in the UK, I understand the concerns about an overwhelming state presence, but I take a more of a balanced view, as these countries also tend to have fairly efficient public services.

That is just shocking about the money spent on care homes. It seems morally wrong. I'm ashamed to say I had no idea!

Two differing views on JRM: that he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing and he is also out to make mischief. Both are probably true. He doesn't strike me as someone easily plagued by doubt.

More seriously though, I worry about the mischief making. There is something about this particular government, the sense of entitlement of its members, the way it runs roughshod over usual procedures, it's lack of gravitas, humility and sense of service. The fact that the right wing press is very much under its thumb. You get the sense that democracy itself is under threat. And I have never felt that before in over four decades of following politics.

Well, the poll tax issue came close. I had my first job in London then in a poorly paid sector and could hardly pay the rent as it was! Never mind pay the poll tax on top. I really struggled. But even then, Thatcher didn't come across as frivolous or seeking to be above the law, and she ultimately paid the price for such an ill thought out and poorly implemented policy . There's something about this lot, without wishing to sound melodramatic, that scares me. It boils down to a lack of basic morality I suppose, and a complete lack of accountability.

I think it’s fair to say though that regardless of the motive, there’s an awful lot of dead wood in the Civil service which could do with being weeded out.

Oh I'm interested to know if that's the case too AlternativePerspective. Which areas could withstand the most pruning (genuine question)?

If there are jobs within the civil service that don’t provide any benefit then it makes sense to remove them, but he isn’t talking about removing jobs that have been formally identified as redundant he’s plucked a nice round number out of the air with the intention of ‘making it fit’ putting many civil servants jobs at risk for no reason.

He isn’t the first and won’t the last to try this, positions that they find they really did need will be contracted out at eye watering rates far and above the average civil servants wage.

Agree all of the above.

Also agree (speaking as a civil servant) that although most civil servants are great IME there are quite a few who aren't much good at their jobs. We're very bad at weeding them out... but that's because it's incredibly hard to pay them off as the private sector would, and dismissing based on capability is really difficult.

Having said that, there are weak people in all organisations, and this doesn't justify getting rid of 90,000 jobs.

Neoliberal values- small state... hence why during lockdown it was perfectly acceptable to throw 50k a pop at businesses with no questions asked... 47 BILLION was handed out! BILLIONS we will now never get back- as many people escaped abroad, fraudulently claimed, or took it when they didn't need it and got an extension on their home etc.... this is public money. I can't get over why there's no uproar over this!

Implementing a simpler, cheaper and fairer system e.g. UBI say 2k to every working age citizen during the pandemic would have been against their values.

I just think if capitalism is so perfect, why do the state have to keep bailing businesses out every time there's a recession/disaster...

Now we're up the economic shitter, it's far easier to target the public sector and blame them, and the daily mail readers just lap it up.

All big institutions are wasteful, so the civil service won’t be any different. Efficiency drives are always a good idea.

(Eg Bits of the Home Office don’t work at all. Cf Ukraine visas.)

Efficiency drives make the Govt look great when everyone’s skint and struggling. Cabinet can swerve helping us but look sympathetic.

I can't even think where 48billion went but I remember at the beginning of Covid,
nationally, including on MN, people were up in arms that people wouldn't get paid, they'd lose their mortgage, companies would collapse, etc, so the govt had to react quickly to try and make sure people got money. If they'd taken the usual civil service length of time in authorising things, people would have been moaning about that too, going on the news giving interviews of how slow the govt was. So they made sure people had money and as a result, fraudulent claims were made. But that was inevitable and I don't see how any quick response could have avoided that.

The same with ppe. The only thing the news and newspapers talked about was about the shortage of ppe so, again, the govt had to try and source more from supplies that were in demand everywhere. And as a result, they got ripped off. But if they had just said we can't get it because its too expensive, they have hot crucified for that too. Ultimately, if you put that much pressure on an individual, wrong decisions will be made.

I remember there was a guy complaining that he'd sourced some ventilators but the govt wouldn't even talk to him. That story did the rounds, people saying the govt were too slow, didn't care, etc, but it turned out, after days of appalling publicity, that they had looked at the ventilators and the nhs had turned them down as being inadequate. So many rumours and ill informed stories made the rounds. We won't know the truth of everything until the enquiry.

Dominic Cummins was threatening to shake up the CS when he was working with BJ. He was always going on about it, that it was bloated and cost inefficient. I guess he wasn't a lone voice.

I work on the civil service and all the recent attacks on it have achieved are that any one who is good at their job is looking to leave. I am planning to leave and will be paid a lot more in the private sector as will many of the people I work with.

Ventilators weren't that good for ppl with covid, they mostly needed CPAP instead (what Johnson had) which is pretty low tech.

I honestly think the fuss is JRM's involvement. He's so sneering and most ppl can't see past that. Some civil servants work very hard for pittance, while regulations serve a purpose. People want safe vehicles, clean beaches, safe drinking water, safe food imports, etc. It takes effort to develop, specify, share, disseminate, monitor and enforce regulations.

It was always the case that people stayed in the CsS for the pension and/or job security but left for more money. My father worked in HMRS. He worked til all his full pensions were secured, then he left to go work in the private sector to earn more money. That was back in the 1970s. Nothing really changes.

Ventilators weren't that good for ppl with covid, they mostly needed CPAP instead (what Johnson had) which is pretty low tech.

This proved to be the case but early on, it was all about getting ventilators.

Basically the civil service is the new tory whipping boy. It makes sense to cut dead wood, jobs that return little value etc. But, like with the NHS, when cuts come those jobs are not the ones that go.

How could they be? Someone would actually have to say "right Bob, you've been here 15 years and been promoted out of everyone's hair nearly every year since you arrived. You add nothing and you are a pain in the arse". That's simply not going to happen - if it were it would have happened already. When the axe falls Bob stays and the people actually doing the work go. Twas ever thus.

I agree with the majority of the above posters. I'm also a civil servant and have done over 20 years - these things come in cycles.

JRM does believe in the small state and we have been hiring non stop for a fair while now. But yes there are shit people that are very hard to get rid of. We need to be more hard headed and not worry about an ET where behaviours are unacceptable. Capability is harder but often so much work the line managers don't do it.

I'd really like to know which departments have the surplus staff!
DWP - I think they're quite busy & will be extra busy if we head in to a recession!
Border force - increased immigration & customs checks due to Brexit - never mind the refuges trying to cross the channel.
MoD - dealing with extra procurement for Ukraine on top of the Digitisation, Cyber Defence etc
Passport office - they are sinking anyway
HMRC - well maybe they could start collecting fraudulent furlough payments & self employed support payments - but the Govt don't seem to want to do that
Animal & plant health agency - work doubled since Brexit - work doubled since Brexit
Home office - won't they be introducing g the new shipping immigrants to Rwanda scheme?
Etc etc

Honestly! Civil servants are pretty cheap compared to the privatised versions, or contractors who tend to earn more plus have tax avoidance schemes in place!

We have had 10 years of austerity, we're generally an ageing workforce - if they offered us redundancy I expect JRM would be trampled in the rush for the door!

Firstly, the small state point has been made- tories love the idea of this and seem to have no issue with the fact that when devolved to private sector it might go wrong / money can leak out in profit etc.

Secondly, the civil service is an easy scapegoat for the fact that our politicians (tories and tbh Labour too, though they aren't in power) have no real policies to fix the things

Thirdly, the civil service is a bit bloated in places, given people hired to do things that were needed in the pandemic. I actually think that the state should do more and we should privatise less, but obviously having a bigger state because you have people doing jobs that are obsolete is the worst of all worlds. In addition, the CS don't sack anyone - PP has said this is because they can't pay people off, but whilst true private sector companies are not flinging money at anyone they want to get rid of (especially before 2 years) and the reason that people don't get performance managed properly (people can get a very low appraisal score and the solution is never them leaving or being demoted - you have to give them more training or promote/sideways move them) is because of the unions (I don't hate unions, btw, they are necessary. It's just that you do sometimes need to grow a spine and performance manage people, if only because it is extremely demotivating for others to have less money or prospects than crappier workers and/or to pick up the slack). Unfortunately, reducing headcount in the CS will usually mean voluntary redundancy, which means that usually those who are good at their job but nearing retirement or who would get paid more in the private sector take redundancy and leave and those who are rubbish cling on because they know they have a good number!

Sorry "to fix the things" was supposed to be "to fox the things that matter to people! Like housing, the care system etc.

I don't know which Dept you work in but I have sacked a Civil Servant, all you need to do as a line manager is follow the policy!
Also every new entrant now is on 6 months probation & if they don't meet the standards of conduct attendance & performance they are out!

Performance Management yes the first step is more training & development but if they still don't improve then it's formal and again if you follow the procedure they are out!

Mine was an attendance issue - at first you think omg this will go on forever but if they are taking the piss, they genuinely can't help themselves & it all snowballs quite quickly - if you follow the procedures!

In my 30 years in the civil service 99.9% of the people I have known have worked really hard & with integrity!

Ha ha ! That was too long! 99% of the people I have worked really hard & do their best every single day!

And I have worked 17 years in one Dept & 14 in another!

I suspect he's inspired by P&O's example. Or fed up that civil servants are having to deal with the downsides of Brexit and struggling to come up with substantial upsides for him to crow about.