“Change” – the Prime Minister’s clarion call as he sets out ‘reforms’ to the state in general and the Civil Service in particular. What does Starmer’s change consist of? So far it has been cosying up to big business and the US (in the hope that they might agree to magic up some economic growth in a way that won’t scare the markets); the victimisation of migrants and asylum seekers; the further immiseration of those dependent on social security to live (particularly disabled people); and ‘restraint’ on public sector pay, fearful of that great but as yet unseen neoliberal chimera – the wage-price-spiral.

Neoliberalism with a red rosette

Perhaps someone could tell Starmer that this isn’t really change – they’re all things that successive governments have tried since 1979. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak. Each has tried to impoverish public servants and the public as a way to fix British capitalism. Each has failed to do anything other than make their mates in the City richer (perhaps that was the point…) while Britain’s post-industrial decline continues.

Undeterred, the PM, slightly earlier than many of his predecessors, it must be said, has reached for a tired trope. The state, specifically the Civil Service is inefficient, a dead hand restraining the animal spirit of the Leviathan. It must be reformed, by which of course, he means cut.

Starmer may have emailed all civil servants a few days ago to say he valued us and knew we too felt “shackled by bureaucracy, frustrated by inefficiency”. But elsewhere his rhetoric is little different from that of Dominic Cummings’ talk of ‘the blob’. We are not, the PM says, offering “good value”. The Minister for the Cabinet Office went on TV to tell the BBC a smaller Civil Service, achieved in part by ‘mutually agreed exits’ (so, redundancies) is part of the plan.

Starmer says that soon we’ll welcome “teams into every government department with a clear mission from me to make the state more innovative and efficient” via the application of AI. Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State of the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, is so enamoured with AI boosterism that he asks Chat GPT what podcast he should go on, or what ‘quantum mechanics’ is. Why rely on your officials, or even Wikipedia, when you can burn a few trees to quiz a chatbot whose ultimate purpose is to provide a convincing answer, rather than reliably determine fact? It would be funny, except Kyle isn’t embarrassed. And then we had the PM and the Health Secretary Wes Streeting gleefully announcing the abolition of NHS England – the undoing of an Tory ‘reform’ that might be worth considering if its functions are rehomed back in the Department of Health and Social Care, but not at the cost of some 10,000 jobs.

Properly funded, resourced public services are both effective and efficient

The Independent Left, and indeed most civil servants, would not disagree that the state could be better, more efficient, and deliver more value for citizens. But, rather than trying the same failed programs of cuts that his predecessors have, we would urge the PM to listen to the labour movement and genuinely ‘fix the foundations’ of the state – its servants.

We would be more productive if we weren’t so stressed. Civil Service World reported that in 2022 the Civil Service saw ‘771,433 sick days due to stress or mental health problems in 2022, compared to 558,125 in 2021’. People are burnt out by ever-increasing workloads, less staff, tighter budgets, and frustrated members of the public. Civil servants are worried about money – we know that in DWP alone many officials are claiming UC, using foodbanks, and stuck on the minimum wage. It’s not hard to realise that if civil servants weren’t overworked, weren’t on poverty wages, and could choose to work their way so as to meet their caring and other responsibilities, then we would not only have much better working and living conditions, but could get more done.

And then, there is outsourcing. According to the Institute for Government, central and local government spent £379 billion (36% of all government expenditure) on ‘procurement’ in 2021/22. Not all of this is outsourcing, to be clear, some of it will be paperclips and other things. But plenty is money which flows from taxpayers to G4S, OSS, Carillion and other vampiric corporations. They pay their staff terribly, on worse terms, and focus entirely on their own profit, rather than delivering for the country – and so what they provide is shit. 

PCS is currently supporting facilities management and other outsourced workers in disputes across government for fair pay and terms. But we say to Starmer now: it’s not just a matter of bringing these people in-house being something which should be a principled decision for a man who describes himself as a ‘socialist’ (or at least ‘centre-left’); these companies are the ones who, more than anyone else, don’t provide good value to taxpayers. Bring their dedicated workers in-house, and reap the benefits to not just citizens, but the Exchequer.

Left Unity are now the right wing, and not a very clever one

The labour movement is the only meaningful force in Britain that advocates for an equitable solution to the crisis of British neoliberal capitalism, and who oppose this idiocy/corruption on the part of our ruling class.

But alas, many of our trade union so-called ‘leaders’ leave rather a lot to be desired. And PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote and her faction (and political appointee staff association) Left Unity, are not up to the job. Heathcote says that she has fully signed PCS up to the PM’s ‘national mission of renewal and changes to the Civil Service’. She tells us ‘happily’ to not worry about mentions of job cuts because a minister told her not to and provided some completely non-binding reassurances before she emerged, starry-eyed back out to Whitehall. 

Time is a cruel mistress and so, as the PM continued to set out his vision of immiseration in further speeches and statements, Fran released another statement saying that “Any proposals for changing the way our members work must be done in full consultation with the unions”. Given LU’s track record on getting anything out of the government, other than the worst pay rise in the public sector, we’re sure Starmer’s New New Labour government won’t lose any sleep over ‘negotiating’ with someone keen to ‘welcome’ any offer, even if it’s terrible.

This obsequious approach to the government is perhaps an attempt to try and keep them onside until we see the fruition of Labour’s promised reforms to workers and trade union rights (although the repeal of the 2016 anti-TU legislation is long past its ‘first 100 days in government’ deadline). This is an increasingly foolish gambit to adopt. Last week the government passed a series of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, watering down its provision to placate the circling vultures of capital. As part of these amendments they have reneged on their promise to repeal the anti-democratic 50% turnout threshold in ballots for industrial action – a requirement which the Labour Party previously referred to as a ‘gimmick’. The government says that it has to be delayed – claiming that further work is required to introduce such a change, and that they must first introduce electronic voting. It should be self-evident, but we will be clear; neither the repealing of the 50% threshold legislation nor changing legislation to allow for electronic balloting are contingent upon one another. 

Why are Labour doing this? Could it be they have been swayed by the pleas of employers, perhaps delivered at an all-expenses-paid-for concert or football match? And perhaps they are conscious that if they follow through with their proposed 2.8% public sector pay offer, in the face of still-rising living costs, they are likely to see a repeat of the ‘hot strike summer’ of 2023 – and would like to restrict industrial action as much as possible?

The response to this ‘delay’ from the leadership of the trade union movement has been lacklustre. Unison say they are ‘disappointed’, noting hopefully the government’s ‘continued commitment’ and asking that the repeal be effected by secondary legislation as soon as practicable. We have written to Unison, offering to sell them a bridge. At least though, they have said something (as have those bastions of militancy, the FDA and Prospect), while Fran Heathcote, and the PCS communications machine she so jealously guards, have at best been bland, complacent and incredibly late at responding to the gathering stormclouds of these attacks – and deafeningly silent at worst.

Why are the bureaucracy not angry? Why are they content with pandering at a time when Labour announce cuts without consultation, and renege on their manifesto promises, in order to retain the ability to quell potential strike action whilst it is politically convenient to do so? Why will they not come out and properly condemn this, try to galvanise members and the public towards a different vision, and to ready members for action which might convince the government otherwise? 

Meanwhile, the Left Unity website is blogging gleefully about the abolition of NHS England and 10,000 jobs. Only about 1% are members, you see, and for right-wing labourites such as Left Unity, paying your subs, and therefore their travel and subsistence, is all that matters. 

Left Unity barely care about PCS members (and frequently deride engaged, hard-working PCS members as ‘out of touch activists’) so why would they possibly care about non-members? They mocked members of the NEC’s left majority coalition for their temerity of suggesting the committee meet to discuss how to respond to these threats of cuts. Don’t worry guys, Fran’s on it, she’s going to agree to anything they say, spin it as ‘significant concessions’ (remember that one?) then release a video about how busy she is!

Change for PCS

Left Unity offers members nothing new and tells you to like it. Like successive governments, they have spent decades trying the same old thing, despite it not working, and are more interested in preserving their positions of privilege than doing anything useful.

PCS should be consulting with branches and other lay structures right now – taking soundings about what’s going on in advance of this year’s central pay remit, seeing where McFadden’s axe might fall, where things aren’t working, and where the government is vulnerable to industrial action. We should be encouraging branches to identify leverage areas of dispute around our national demands, to campaign, to be ready for a ballot, and build industrial momentum in anticipation of the government launching their attack. We should be actively recruiting in NHS England and offering to help fight job losses, suggesting a transition into the Civil Service proper instead! Roles can be moved to DHSC or staff redeployed and retrained for new roles where duplication of services would occur. It’s no one’s fault they work for a badly run quango, and if any restructure is needed, we should be liaising with the doctors’ and other healthcare workers’ unions to find out their views on how best it could be done, and what specifically it needs to achieve to provide the best outcomes.

But they won’t do it. If you want a union leadership that cares about this, and will do something to fight against it, then vote for Independent Left and other Coalition for Change candidates in this year’s NEC elections.