Civil Service cuts
« Iraq | Back to most recent briefing | Syria »
Asked to comment on today’s FT report suggesting that the Government was rowing back on its Budget pledge to cut the number of Civil Servants, the PMOS said that the Budget’s contents remained unchanged. We would report on the issue in due course. Pressed as to whether the story was true in the light of Nick Raynsford’s comments yesterday, the PMOS said that Mr Raynsford’s words were on the record. We would be able to respond properly once we had reported on the issue. Asked if the Prime Minister would want to pay tribute to the 700,000 extra Civil Servants who had been employed by the Government, the PMOS said that Civil Servants were taken on to do necessary jobs. Put to him that the Chancellor had said in the Budget that 60,000 Civil Service posts were not necessary and should be cut, the PMOS said that obviously the issue would be addressed in areas where savings could be made through modernisation.
Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news
« Iraq | Back to most recent briefing | Syria »
Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is
reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's
Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is
reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most
up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original
source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions.
Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright
Downing Street Says.
|
How can you make savings ‘through modernisation’? Just because a system is more modern it doesn’t mean that you need less people to operate it.
The discussions about civil service numbers are full of this meaningless twaddle. All parties are pledging to cut the number of civil servants but non of them have said why. Non of the parties have said which jobs will no longer need doing. Non of them have said how systems will be made more efficient to require less staff. Non of them have said how this will make life better for taxpayers.
Public sector admin costs are tiny compared to overall public expenditure so why are politicians making such a big thing about how many civil servants they employ? There only seem two explanations to me. Either they have no understanding of public sector finances or they are just trying to throw up a smokescreen to cover up the billions of pounds that are wasted through politicians incompetence.
On a final point, whatever happened to democratic choice? I want to vote for a party that will increase the public sector (renationalise transport, energy etc) not reduce it.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 12 May 2004 on 9:11 pm | LinkCivil Service jobs will get cut because they were boosted by the government during the last economic cycle to prop up growth and employment figures. Civil Service employment goes up and down with the spending cycle; always has, always will.
Comment by Gregory Block — 14 May 2004 on 1:56 pm | LinkCivil service numbers have been in a decline (with some short term fluctuations) for the past 25 years.
People complain about the decline in the standard of public services but never seem to connect this to the decline in people engaged in delivering them. Too many years of thacherite brainwashing
Comment by Uncarved Block — 14 May 2004 on 2:12 pm | Link