Why the UK Civil Service Keeps Growing—But Not Improving

[Social Media]

 

Despite decades of promises to streamline Whitehall, the civil service continues to expand without becoming significantly more effective. Every few years, a new government pledges to cut staff, boost efficiency, and reward high performers while removing underachievers. Yet, the same systemic issues remain.  

 

This cycle is not new. In 2004, Tony Blair called for radical reform, demanding fewer Whitehall staff, greater specialization, and an end to rigid departmental structures. Fast forward to 2025, and Sir Keir Starmer is making the same demands. Even earlier, the 1968 Fulton report criticized an overreliance on generalists, a lack of scientific expertise, and poor personnel management.  

 

The fundamental question is why, after all these years, change remains elusive. According to Alex Thomas from the Institute for Government, one key reason is the lack of a clear leadership structure. “One of the reasons why change is hard is that nobody really runs the civil service,” he explained. “The cabinet secretary is head of the civil service, but in the end, departments are federated and do their own thing.” This decentralization limits any prime minister’s ability to implement widespread reform.  

 

Recent history has proven that political pledges alone are insufficient. In 2022, Boris Johnson vowed to cut 90,000 civil service jobs, reversing the post-Brexit increase. However, despite a promised “headcount cap” in 2023, civil service numbers continued to rise. Today, the workforce is 115,000 stronger than its pre-Brexit low, making it the largest since 2006.  

 

Lord Maude of Horsham, who led significant reductions in civil service size under the coalition government, believes it is possible to make cuts without chaos. “We didn’t set a target to downsize by more than 20 percent, but it did happen without any massive drama—so it can be done,” he said. However, post-Brexit political instability made it difficult for ministers to stay focused on long-term reform. As a result, even widely supported initiatives, such as Michael Gove’s 2021 government efficiency plan, ultimately stalled.  

 

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, represented by Fran Heathcote, argues that Maude’s previous cuts were unsustainable. She points out that Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic forced the government to hire more staff. Indeed, the chaotic response to these crises led to uncontrolled recruitment. “You could say that the civil service and ministers wasted the opportunity to rewire the state during those crises,” Thomas observed. “There is now scope to unwind some of that growth.”  

 

There is general agreement that the civil service needs a way to remove poor performers. However, as Thomas cautions, measuring performance in government work is often difficult. Meanwhile, Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA civil service trade union, argues that uncompetitive salaries are a major issue. Real pay for top civil service grades has fallen by over 20 percent since 2010, leading to record-high staff turnover. Middle management has doubled in size over the past decade, as departments have promoted staff to circumvent pay constraints—eliminating much of the intended cost savings.  

 

Beyond Whitehall, the government workforce has now surpassed five million, driven primarily by growth in the NHS and academized schools. Local government, however, has not recovered from post-2010 cuts. In 2000, councils employed as many people as central government; today, they are half that size.  

 

 

Some growth in the civil service has been unavoidable. Brexit led the UK to take on many responsibilities previously handled by the EU. For example, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs has quadrupled in size since 2016. Similarly, the Home Office has hired 58,000 additional staff—many for asylum casework—as the government struggled to manage a backlog of immigration claims. Ironically, while Starmer has pledged to increase military spending, the Ministry of Defence is the only department to have shrunk since 2016.  

 

 

On Monday, Starmer and Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, sent an email to civil servants promising a “rewiring of the British state.” They acknowledged that top performers had been “shackled by bureaucracy, frustrated by inefficiency, and unable to harness new technology.” Their message was optimistic: “You will be supported to do things differently and be rewarded for delivery.” However, history suggests that talk is easy; meaningful reform is much harder.  

 

 

Andrew Haldenby of the Effective Governance Forum warns that past attempts have failed because prime ministers did not prioritize reform. “Keir Starmer has to take the lead,” he said. Starmer is expected to outline his plans in more detail on Thursday, but making those plans a reality will require a sustained effort to convince permanent secretaries and civil servants that change is in their best interest.  

 

Lord Maude offers a simple solution: appoint a dedicated head of the civil service, separate from the cabinet secretary, to focus solely on reform. “The central problem is there is no one in charge,” he said. “Unless you’re positively trying to control the size of the civil service and reduce it, it will grow. There are spasms of reform which occasionally make a difference. But there is always a tendency to regress.”  

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-13

 

 

[klauskunkel]

The Bureaucracy is expanding to serve the needs of the expanding Bureaucracy.

[newbee2022]

2 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Despite decades of promises to streamline Whitehall, the civil service continues to expand without becoming significantly more effective. Every few years, a new government pledges to cut staff, boost efficiency, and reward high performers while removing underachievers. Yet, the same systemic issues remain.  

 

This cycle is not new. In 2004, Tony Blair called for radical reform, demanding fewer Whitehall staff, greater specialization, and an end to rigid departmental structures. Fast forward to 2025, and Sir Keir Starmer is making the same demands. Even earlier, the 1968 Fulton report criticized an overreliance on generalists, a lack of scientific expertise, and poor personnel management.  

 

The fundamental question is why, after all these years, change remains elusive. According to Alex Thomas from the Institute for Government, one key reason is the lack of a clear leadership structure. “One of the reasons why change is hard is that nobody really runs the civil service,” he explained. “The cabinet secretary is head of the civil service, but in the end, departments are federated and do their own thing.” This decentralization limits any prime minister’s ability to implement widespread reform.  

 

 

Recent history has proven that political pledges alone are insufficient. In 2022, Boris Johnson vowed to cut 90,000 civil service jobs, reversing the post-Brexit increase. However, despite a promised “headcount cap” in 2023, civil service numbers continued to rise. Today, the workforce is 115,000 stronger than its pre-Brexit low, making it the largest since 2006.  

 

Lord Maude of Horsham, who led significant reductions in civil service size under the coalition government, believes it is possible to make cuts without chaos. “We didn’t set a target to downsize by more than 20 percent, but it did happen without any massive drama—so it can be done,” he said. However, post-Brexit political instability made it difficult for ministers to stay focused on long-term reform. As a result, even widely supported initiatives, such as Michael Gove’s 2021 government efficiency plan, ultimately stalled.  

 

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, represented by Fran Heathcote, argues that Maude’s previous cuts were unsustainable. She points out that Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic forced the government to hire more staff. Indeed, the chaotic response to these crises led to uncontrolled recruitment. “You could say that the civil service and ministers wasted the opportunity to rewire the state during those crises,” Thomas observed. “There is now scope to unwind some of that growth.”  

 

There is general agreement that the civil service needs a way to remove poor performers. However, as Thomas cautions, measuring performance in government work is often difficult. Meanwhile, Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA civil service trade union, argues that uncompetitive salaries are a major issue. Real pay for top civil service grades has fallen by over 20 percent since 2010, leading to record-high staff turnover. Middle management has doubled in size over the past decade, as departments have promoted staff to circumvent pay constraints—eliminating much of the intended cost savings.  

 

Beyond Whitehall, the government workforce has now surpassed five million, driven primarily by growth in the NHS and academized schools. Local government, however, has not recovered from post-2010 cuts. In 2000, councils employed as many people as central government; today, they are half that size.  

 

 

Some growth in the civil service has been unavoidable. Brexit led the UK to take on many responsibilities previously handled by the EU. For example, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs has quadrupled in size since 2016. Similarly, the Home Office has hired 58,000 additional staff—many for asylum casework—as the government struggled to manage a backlog of immigration claims. Ironically, while Starmer has pledged to increase military spending, the Ministry of Defence is the only department to have shrunk since 2016.  

 

 

On Monday, Starmer and Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, sent an email to civil servants promising a “rewiring of the British state.” They acknowledged that top performers had been “shackled by bureaucracy, frustrated by inefficiency, and unable to harness new technology.” Their message was optimistic: “You will be supported to do things differently and be rewarded for delivery.” However, history suggests that talk is easy; meaningful reform is much harder.  

 

 

Andrew Haldenby of the Effective Governance Forum warns that past attempts have failed because prime ministers did not prioritize reform. “Keir Starmer has to take the lead,” he said. Starmer is expected to outline his plans in more detail on Thursday, but making those plans a reality will require a sustained effort to convince permanent secretaries and civil servants that change is in their best interest.  

 

Lord Maude offers a simple solution: appoint a dedicated head of the civil service, separate from the cabinet secretary, to focus solely on reform. “The central problem is there is no one in charge,” he said. “Unless you’re positively trying to control the size of the civil service and reduce it, it will grow. There are spasms of reform which occasionally make a difference. But there is always a tendency to regress.”  

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-03-13

 

 

Many services could be outsourced for better performance.👍

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Many services could be outsourced for better performance.👍

That’s what quangos are, they seldom deliver.

…..

The UK has an opportunity it should not miss.

 

Sit back and observe what happens when the Government of the U.S. is slashed.

 

 

[newbee2022]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sit back and observe what happens when the Government of the U.S. is slashed.

Yes, could be very soon, if the democrats will block the budget

[Nid_Noi]

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Many services could be outsourced for better performance.👍

Outsourced to who? McKinsey???

[newbee2022]

26 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:

Outsourced to who? McKinsey???

M

 

26 minutes ago, Nid_Noi said:

Outsourced to who? McKinsey???

MI6

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Yes, could be very soon, if the democrats will block the budget

So you’ve missed Musk firing tens of thousands of Federal employees?

[frank83628]

They all lie about it. Billions is wasted. Nobody is ever held accountable 

[transam]

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

They all lie about it. Billions is wasted. Nobody is ever held accountable 

Who.....?  

[newbee2022]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you’ve missed Musk firing tens of thousands of Federal employees?

Why do you think I missed that?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

Why do you think I missed that?

Because you clearly avoid the dismembering of Federal Government that is currently underway and go for some ‘Democrat’ whataboutary that hasn’t even happened.

[faraday]

With almost 60k new staff in Operational Delivery since 2016, & the CS still isn't "improving"...

Hmm....

 

 

[newbee2022]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because you clearly avoid the dismembering of Federal Government that is currently underway and go for some ‘Democrat’ whataboutary that hasn’t even happened.

You're wrong.

You missed the word "if" the Democrats.....

There might be a debate of outsourcing some services for better effectiveness and performance.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

You're wrong.

You missed the word "if" the Democrats.....

There might be a debate of outsourcing some services for better effectiveness and performance.

No I didn’t miss your ‘if’, it’s central to the fact you were referring to something that hasn’t not happened.

 

 

[newbee2022]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I didn’t miss your ‘if’, it’s central to the fact you were referring to something that hasn’t not happened.

 

 

Good that you got it now🤗

[ronnie50]

How many times have you heard: "I can only just apologize" - but they never fix the f'up or confusion? I came to believe that they were '(almost) always polite, but rarely helpful' 

[JonnyF]

Socialists love the civil service. Just as they love benefits.

 

They want a huge state where everyone works for them or relies on them. Gives them power and helps them retain it...  

[The Old Bull]

It's built into the system the more staff you have under you the more important you become. If you have ten people working for you and eight are laid off you go from a manager to a supervisor, like going from a sergeant to a corporal in the military . That's why the civil service will only grow.