Tag Archives: Cabinet Office

Confronting Left Unity’s Fake Optimism

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In PCS’s most recent update, ‘News from the NEC – December 2025’, you will read Left Unity negotiators express “cautious optimism over [PCS’] core demand to end delegated pay bargaining and to introduce more coherence through national pay bargaining.” However, they also quietly admit there is “nothing concrete” at this stage.

As the Independent Left (IL), we look past “warm words” and analyse the material reality of these talks. Therefore we are extremely sceptical that any genuine progress is being made toward national bargaining; our scepticism is based on two realities: money and a total lack of union pressure.

The Economic Reality: The Cost of Equalisation
If the Cabinet Office is actually signalling a move toward national bargaining, that promise is only meaningful if it leads to the equalisation of pay across the Civil Service. Currently, the system is a mess of delegated authority where different departments pay vastly different rates of pay to staff in the same grades. Levelling everyone up to the highest pay point per grade would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. This is money that has not been budgeted for in the current Spending Review. So ask yourself: is it likely that this government, which is actively seeking to reduce the cost of the Civil Service, will spontaneously agree to a massive, unforced increase in the wage bill?

The Power Gap: Lessons from the BMA
Left Unity is asking you to believe that the Cabinet Office might possibly overthrow 40 years of established industrial practice simply because our negotiators have put forward good arguments!

Compare our situation to the BMA Resident Doctors. They have taken extensive industrial action and have won significant pay rises. Even then, they are still forced to fight on for full pay restoration and for more training places. The government only moved because they faced a genuine crisis in the NHS and a union willing to exert maximum pressure.

If the government moves this slowly when faced with a high-profile crisis and massive strikes, why would they give PCS anything when we aren’t applying any pressure at all? There is currently no threat of industrial action, no legal challenge, and no political leverage being applied. In that vacuum, Ministers have no incentive to concede anything.

Pre-Election Spin vs. Real Solutions
We believe Left Unity is spinning these “discussions” because the NEC elections are on the horizon. Senior Managers may well acknowledge the “concertina effect”—where the rising minimum wage is crushing pay differentials for AA, AO, and EO grades—but acknowledging a problem is not the same as actually solving one.

A real solution would require an agreement that as the minimum wage rises, the wages of AAs, AOs, and EOs would also rise to maintain pay differentials. This would effectively mean automatic pay increases and there is no evidence that the government is prepared to agree to such a radical shift.

We suspect that once the NEC elections are over, and if LU wins, we will discover that these claims of progress had no substance.

For us, the only way to win national bargaining and equal pay is through a serious strategy of industrial, legal, and political action. But Left Unity, as they have proved in their decades of being in control of the union, are incapable of such action.
If you believe that such action is needed then vote for us in the upcoming elections and consider joining us: https://pcsindependentleft.com/join-us/

London Faces A Jobs Massacre

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Places for Growth”

 Late last year, without any fanfare, the Cabinet Office published an evaluation report on “Places for Growth” (PfG). PfG is the Tory initiated program, started in 2020, to relocate 22,000 roles outside of London by 2027 and to have 50% of UK-based Senior Civil Servants (SCS) based outside of the capital by 2030.

The real purpose of the plan, however, was to move civil service jobs into constituencies that the Tories wanted to win in the general election; of course, that plan failed miserably.

For us, the key conclusion in the report is (emphasis ours):

Conclusion: At risk: The ministerially agreed principle to reduce the number of civil servants based in London to 75,000 by 2030, a key aspect of the Plan for London program, is currently at risk based on current headcount data. It is noted, however, that the increase in Civil Service headcount in London should be viewed in the context of the increased demands preparing for EU Exit, and then management of the pandemic response during this period.

YearLondon (Headcount)Outside London
201778,070334,150
201883,530339,110
201989,100348,460
202091,660356,100
2021101,930 (FTE 98,000)375,470
2022104,830 (FTE 100,955)398,250
2023103,735 (FTE 99,790)409,820

Up until now, PfG has been relatively painless as the civil service was expanding at the same time as roles were supposedly being relocated out of London. Following recent announcements, however, we know that overall civil service headcount is set to reduce and, on the face of it, 25,000 jobs will have to be cut in London to meet the 75,000 target for London headcount.

We in the Independent Left take this seriously. Labour is desperate for savings and in many ways, they are more ruthless, callous, and rigid than the Tories.

This is amply demonstrated by today’s announcement that the Cabinet Office, mostly London-based, expects 2,100 out of its 6,500 jobs will be cut or moved to other parts of government over the next two years. Pat McFaden, the Minister in charge of the Cabinet Office, has been explicit that moving jobs out of London is “where the state can get better value for money.” Where the Cabinet Office goes, others will follow.

Also highlighted in the report is the target:

“London estate reduced to 20 buildings by 2026 and consolidation of regional estates into hubs”.

The report says of this target:

Evidence: The current count of buildings in the London estate is 63. This is expected to fall to 40 buildings by 2026 based on disposals planned, compared to a target of 20.

Such a sharp reduction in the number of buildings threatens our members working in facility management jobs. It stands to reason that you need fewer security guards, catering staff, cleaners, etc. if you have 20 buildings rather than 63 buildings.

What is to be done?

The Independent Left propose the following:

  • We ask the Labour Government to drop the 75K target, insource all FM work, and give a guarantee of employment for all FM workers. If they don’t, then we campaign in London, targeting Labour MPs in particular to support us;
  • We educate and agitate around this issue with London staff with an explicit goal to recruit civil servants and FM workers and to build an expanding cadre of civil service/FM activists;
  • Under the auspices of the London and SE Regional (LSE) committee, regular meetings are held with impacted London branches. FM worker reps must be part of these meetings. The LSE to be given a campaign budget so that local campaigning can be undertaken;
  • All relevant Groups, National branches, London branches, and the national union meet together regularly to plan bargaining and campaigning;
  • All the above is undertaken with the aim to build and win strikes in London.

If Left Unity wins a majority on the NEC, will any of the above happen? We are doubtful.

In DWP, where the LU has had complete control for decades, their standard operating procedure when faced with mass office closures/staffing cuts is to place the burden on individual branches to fight the closures/cuts on their own and to exclude local branches from any talks with management about local offices.

They will do the same with London

With a Coalition for Change NEC, our proposals stand a chance of being adopted. So, if you work in London, vote Cfc in the NEC elections.

Low hanging fruit

by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This is how Francis Maude, the Cabinet Minister, described the £3.75 billion of savings the government claims it has made in the civil service

The Cabinet office say the savings included:

  • £870m from cutting consultancy spending
  • Nearly £500m from reducing spend on temporary agency staff
  • £400m from cutting marketing spending
  • £360m from centralising spend on common goods and services
  • £800m from renegotiating deals with some of the largest suppliers to government, equivalent to 6% of a full year of spend with those suppliers
  • £150m from 2010-11 budgets for government’s major projects, by halting or curtailing spending
  • £300m by “applying greater scrutiny” to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) expenditure
  • £90m reduction on property expenses by “exerting better control” over lease renewals
  • the equivalent of £300m saved on 2010-2011 salary costs by reducing the size of the civil service by more than 17,000 posts

The Union has long argued that the civil service was, and indeed is, over reliant on consultants and temporary staff (it would be cheaper to hire permanent staff). Not only have we said that they were unnecessary but we have hammered home how much they cost. So we knew that much could be saved on these fronts.

It is claimed that £360m has been saved from centralising spend on common goods and services and £90m reduction on property expenses by “exerting better control” over lease renewals

There is deep irony here as it was Margret Thatcher’s government which abolished the centralised purchase of many goods and services by shutting down the Crown Suppliers. They also abolished the Property Service Agency which had centralised control of the government estate. Read more about them here.

So Francis Maude is partly undoing Mrs Thatcher’s “modernisation”. At the time that the Crown Suppliers and the PSA were abolished we said it would lead to greater costs as the civil service abandoned bulk buying and let departments and agencies lease and buy properties; even if this put them into competition with other departments and agencies who may have wanted to acquire buildings in the same area.

The £150m “saving” from 2010-11 budgets for government’s major projects, by halting or curtailing spending is not a saving if the projects being worked on are needed; it just puts off the evil day when you have to recommence spending on those major projects.

The £800m saving from renegotiating deals. In a slow economy it is always possible to reduce costs as companies are desperate to keep what work they have; the trick is to reduce or contain costs in a boom. Of course the companies who are squeezed, squeeze their workers or shed them (the DWP then picks up the bill for their benefits) and they squeeze their sub contactors.

Reducing the size of the civil service by more than 17,000 posts. Leave aside the fact that many of the 17,000 probably no longer pay tax but get benefits from the DWP hence it maybe cheaper to keep them employed.

Leaving aside the American experience that cutting civil service numbers make matters worse such cuts in the civil service either leads to chaos or lost of income for the government. In other words the 17,000 cut is self defeating.

Of course this brings us to what these “savings” are supposed to achieve. Mr Maude sates that these cuts are “equivalent to the salaries of 200,000 junior nurses, or 150,000 secondary school teachers”. The possible implication being that money saved will be ploughed back into hiring nurses and teachers. In fact, both nurses and teachers are losing jobs under this government.

So this is not saving money to spend it better; it is part of a package of reducing public services.