Reducing the work of 90,000 civil servants grabs the headline, but does it really happen?

This article is an on-site version of the Inside Politics newsletter.sign up Here Send your newsletter directly to your inbox on weekdays

good morning. Today, I gather my thoughts on leaked letters that would worry civil servants, and discuss some good news for immigrant-backed liberals. Please contact us from the email address below.

Inside Politics is edited by Georgia Quach. Follow Stephen on Twitter @stephenkb Send gossip, thoughts and feedback to

Our latest story

  • Bank was blamed | Senior Conservatives I turned on the Bank of England With the rare occurrence of political criticism of how central banks do their core work in dealing with inflation.

  • Small and medium-sized enterprises | The minister Delayed long-promised corporate strategy It would have come up with plans to support the expansion of SMEs after the pandemic and to support private sector investment in the UK.

  • Party gate | The Metropolitan Police Department Fined another 50 to government officials As part of an investigation into rule violations on Downing Street and Whitehall during a pandemic.

  • Wilfa on the way | The government is donating £ 120 million to a new fund for the development of nuclear power as it seeks to put nuclear power at the center of the electricity mix. Bloomberg Report.. Secretary-General Kwasi Kwaten yesterday launched a fund from Wilfa, Anglesey, where the new nuclear power plant will be located.

Just in case

Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana on ITV News Got a letter It was addressed to civil servants by Chief Cabinet Secretary Simon Case. In some cases, Boris Johnson called for a plan to reduce the size of civil servants to 2016 levels, that is, to reduce the number of civil servants employed by the UK government to pre-Brexit levels within three years. … apparently … This means reducing the employment of up to 90,000 people, Asthana reports. this is, 50,000 figures reported by FT Returned in December 2021.

You will notice an obvious problem here. Brexit’s vote returned a lot of authority and responsibility, among other things, to the British government, which was being processed by the EU. Therefore, a significant reduction in the number of civil servants could hurt the services provided by the government.

But it produces a nice, encouraging headline figure. Jason Grove, the political editor of the Daily Mail, got the same story. The front page of today’s email suggests that a reduction in civil servants could release £ 3.5 billion in revenue to spend on tax cuts. Of course, this isn’t particularly common in government spending schemes, but it sounds reassuringly large for most voters.

Governments prefer to save on future efficiencies because the political pain of providing them is a future issue, but they can make promises based on the idea of ​​achieving current efficiencies. .. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if these reductions in the size of civil servants remain completely theoretical, such as so many efficiency savings under so many governments.

Border farce

Conservative lawmakers have a lot of anxiety, one of which is the inability of the government to reduce immigration. The number of foreigners entering the UK is actually higher than it was before leaving the EU. Many Tory lawmakers say that reducing the total number of people coming to the country, rather than the government having a higher degree of control, is a prerequisite for demonstrating that Brexit is working. I believe there is. Are they right?Not according to my colleague John Burn-Murdock’s latest column.. The key chart is as follows:

John examined the data, but they all point out the same. Voter concerns about immigration in the UK correlate with the existence of control, not the level of immigrants. So is it wrong for the Conservatives to worry about the election outcome of failing to reduce numbers?

Yes, yes, no. Only one in seven British say immigration is one of the biggest problems facing Britain, but these voters could be twice as conservative as workers. It is said that it is expensive. Ipsos survey conducted in April..

Keep in mind that the big difference in 2019 compared to 2017 was not that the Conservatives got a lot of votes directly from Labor. Rather, it was the fact that the Labor Party lost votes to the LDP and the Greens, and people did not stand up to the vote. And in 2017, one of the reasons the Conservatives lost their majority was that some voters stayed home instead of voting.

Tory lawmakers are right to worry that Britain’s current immigration policy is widely popular with voters, but it turns off enough voters that it should be a headache for them.

Try this now

I always enjoy the weekly column by FT Innovation Editor John Thornhill The impact of technologyBut this week I thanked him even more for drawing my attention to this Fun and barbaric evaluation Berlioz’s new work Trojan people By opera critic Shirley Apsorpe.

Thank you for your advice on whether to dive into the glamorous blue velvet jacket. In the end, I decided that the potential drawback of looking like a kid’s magician was more important than the possibility that I would look like a jazz saxophonist. I will let you know what will happen. See you on monday. Have a nice weekend (Why don’t you test News Nous? FT’s latest current quiz?? )

Europe Express — Your essential guide to what’s important in Europe today.sign up Here

Britain after Brexit — Keep an eye on the latest developments as the UK economy is adapting to life outside the EU.sign up Here

Reducing the work of 90,000 civil servants grabs the headline, but does it really happen?

Source link Reducing the work of 90,000 civil servants grabs the headline, but does it really happen?

Back to top button