| Francis Maude Mk. 2 09:37 - Mar 9 with 3439 views | DJR |
Unions on alert as Labour prepares to unveil ‘Trumpian’ plan for civil service
Performance-related pay, exit process for poor performers and more digitalisation among proposed measures intended to revolutionise Whitehall
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/08/unions-on-alert-as-labour-prepa
Having worked in Whitehall for nearly 30 years ago, it always frustrates me when politicians blame civil servants, rather than poor policy or forces outside anyone's control, for our problems. It's a bit like when they say it is not the policy but the communications that are to blame.
Blaming it on the civil service, the article says that McFadden is expected to say working people have not seen improvements in their job opportunities, the safety of their neighbourhoods or the length of time they have to wait for NHS treatment when they are sick.
But to take but three examples when it comes to the NHS, PFI, austerity and the Lansley reforms represent a failure of policy not a failure of the civil service. And Covid, something outside government control, has also had an impact.
And the issue in recent decades is that governments force through policy despite civil service misgivings.
[Post edited 9 Mar 9:44]
|  | | |  |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 13:41 - Mar 10 with 784 views | DJR |
No prior consultation with the civil service unions, which is shoddy and not what one would expect of a Labour government.
This from the general secretary of the FDA (of which I am a retired member).
Colleagues,
Many of you will have seen that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a series of announcements to the media on Sunday regarding the civil service.
His announcements - on performance management, fast track exits for poor performers, and a link between performance and pay - were made by way of a press release to journalists late on Friday - in advance of the ministerial broadcast round on Sunday.
We were given no advance notice of these announcements or details beyond what you will have read in the press. We spent Saturday morning trying to discover more detail and were left to respond publicly to an announcement that had already been trailed. Inevitably that response – which included BBC News and Sky News - was robust.
I am frankly dismayed that the government, now eight months into power would treat their civil servants in this way. All civil servants know that governing is tough, and ministers have to inhabit a world of febrile politics. But when politicians become ministers, they also take on a responsibility of leadership for more than half a million dedicated public servants in the civil service. This government would expect any major employer to consult unions and staff before making major announcements in the press. They need to hold themselves to these standards as well.
It is all the more galling as we have been trying to get the new government to engage in a partnership to help us work with them in addressing the many challenges the civil service faces. The FDA prides itself in dealing with difficult issues, often unpalatable to members, because of course every government will propose unpalatable things for civil servants.
The FDA, like the civil service itself, is not afraid of reform, but reform has to have substance. The government is facing tough choices. It has to match an ambitious agenda with limited resources and that of course means that the civil service must change how it operates. Driving change in any organisation is difficult, but it is made all the more difficult if it is something that is being done to, rather than with, the very people the government is asking to help deliver their agenda.
We have always approached these difficult issues by rolling up our sleeves, getting embroiled in the detail and seeking to influence. That approach to engagement and partnership only works if the employer is prepared to reciprocate. On performance management and pay we have a unique and valuable insight that we can bring to the table. That’s what good, pragmatic unions do.
After his ill-judged comments in December on the “tepid bath of managed decline” the Prime Minister responded to my letter to say that “government must deliver better for the people we both serve and ministers and civil servants should work in a partnership that is based on trust.”
At the weekend I made these points to the government. We know they’ve got a tough job, every civil servant does, but dealing with tough issues doesn’t have to look like this.
We will now seek to recover some ground on these announcements. We will be meeting with officials this week to go through the detail of these announcements and of course will let you have sight of these when we have them.
In the meantime please do not hesitate to get in touch with any thoughts you have at info@fda.org.uk .
Dave Penman
FDA General Secretary [Post edited 10 Mar 13:43]
| | | |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 13:50 - Mar 10 with 760 views | Churchman |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 12:58 - Mar 10 by Ryorry |
Staying in for the notoriously good pension is, I imagine, a huge factor - that and job security probably being a major factor in attracting employees in the first place. |
The pension was little different to pensions offered by banks and other peer style organisations - final salary schemes. Companies started pulling those when inflation stopped diminishing them and the pension race to the bottom began.
So it was less about the CS pensions offered being good and more about the private sector pulling their versions. The government of the day should have legislated against this in my view.
CS pensions worked on 40th (Classic). It then moved for a couple of years to 30ths (Premium) but premiums paid were a lot higher and there was no lump sum. That was 2003. Average schemes were then introduced, payable at state pension age not 60 as the original schemes were. I think you can opt for Money Purchase Scheme (where you buy an annuity at the end of it) too.
Most people that work in the public sector don’t work there for life or get to a high grade so even if they do 30 or 40 years they won’t get a king’s ransom. Since they’ve watered down pension provision the amount the govt will have to pay will diminish as people die.
The other factor with the CS which was mirrored in the retail banking world was that the pay was not great but was compensated by pension arrangements to an extent. The government way back when also decided that money paid into pensions would not go into a pension fund as contributions normally do, but pensions would be paid direct from taxes.
They did it to reuse the money there and then. The tories then claimed there was no money to pay pensioners. Yeah, right. Nobody asked the government to hose peoples pension contributions up the wall over decades.
Was the final salary scheme an incentive for me to stay with the CS for 16 years? No. It was the work that kept me there and my age, but the pension certainly discouraged me from looking, even if I did have the odd conversation with recruiters. |  | | |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 14:03 - Mar 10 with 748 views | Ryorry |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 13:50 - Mar 10 by Churchman |
The pension was little different to pensions offered by banks and other peer style organisations - final salary schemes. Companies started pulling those when inflation stopped diminishing them and the pension race to the bottom began.
So it was less about the CS pensions offered being good and more about the private sector pulling their versions. The government of the day should have legislated against this in my view.
CS pensions worked on 40th (Classic). It then moved for a couple of years to 30ths (Premium) but premiums paid were a lot higher and there was no lump sum. That was 2003. Average schemes were then introduced, payable at state pension age not 60 as the original schemes were. I think you can opt for Money Purchase Scheme (where you buy an annuity at the end of it) too.
Most people that work in the public sector don’t work there for life or get to a high grade so even if they do 30 or 40 years they won’t get a king’s ransom. Since they’ve watered down pension provision the amount the govt will have to pay will diminish as people die.
The other factor with the CS which was mirrored in the retail banking world was that the pay was not great but was compensated by pension arrangements to an extent. The government way back when also decided that money paid into pensions would not go into a pension fund as contributions normally do, but pensions would be paid direct from taxes.
They did it to reuse the money there and then. The tories then claimed there was no money to pay pensioners. Yeah, right. Nobody asked the government to hose peoples pension contributions up the wall over decades.
Was the final salary scheme an incentive for me to stay with the CS for 16 years? No. It was the work that kept me there and my age, but the pension certainly discouraged me from looking, even if I did have the odd conversation with recruiters. |
I think we’re talking about different eras, I was referring to people starting work as youngsters in the 20thC.
Re inefficiency generally, anecdotal stories from lifetime CS employee friend now mid-70s who worked hard herself, retired age 60 from medical section, was of a lot of lazing around and time-wasting by some there , unfortunately. |  |
| |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 17:48 - Mar 10 with 707 views | mellowblue |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 23:07 - Mar 9 by Churchman |
To be fair, part of the problem with procurement is that third parties will promise the earth and deliver f all. That’s why you need specialist contract and legal bods because private companies act for the shareholder and look to deliver the least for the most profit. Their motivation is that, not providing a service to the public. You need a balance and people with the right expertise to manage this stuff.
All way beyond the likes of my skill levels. There’s no hiding. It’s complex, especially with new stuff. You need teams with people with different skill sets and if a government project uses private sector, which it invariably does, it needs strict control. It’s about finding right people.
The reverse is also true. There are many examples of things that were nearly lost through politics and wrong public sector people muddying the waters. The R101 airship disaster is a good example, as is the loss of a supersonic version of the Harrier. Ridiculous changing requirements and perceived lack of money meant that even the subsonic version was very nearly not built.
It all comes back to politicians. Great examples of how well public, private partnership can work are the Castle Bromwich for the Spitfire, the development specifically for Britain by Lockheed of the Hudson maritime aircraft and the licence build of of the Merlin engine by Packard. Three remarkable stories. |
Having seen much procurement in the public sector as a private supplier, as some one else said, it is bonkers how inefficient it is. |  | | |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 15:40 - Mar 12 with 587 views | DJR |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 13:41 - Mar 10 by DJR |
No prior consultation with the civil service unions, which is shoddy and not what one would expect of a Labour government.
This from the general secretary of the FDA (of which I am a retired member).
Colleagues,
Many of you will have seen that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a series of announcements to the media on Sunday regarding the civil service.
His announcements - on performance management, fast track exits for poor performers, and a link between performance and pay - were made by way of a press release to journalists late on Friday - in advance of the ministerial broadcast round on Sunday.
We were given no advance notice of these announcements or details beyond what you will have read in the press. We spent Saturday morning trying to discover more detail and were left to respond publicly to an announcement that had already been trailed. Inevitably that response – which included BBC News and Sky News - was robust.
I am frankly dismayed that the government, now eight months into power would treat their civil servants in this way. All civil servants know that governing is tough, and ministers have to inhabit a world of febrile politics. But when politicians become ministers, they also take on a responsibility of leadership for more than half a million dedicated public servants in the civil service. This government would expect any major employer to consult unions and staff before making major announcements in the press. They need to hold themselves to these standards as well.
It is all the more galling as we have been trying to get the new government to engage in a partnership to help us work with them in addressing the many challenges the civil service faces. The FDA prides itself in dealing with difficult issues, often unpalatable to members, because of course every government will propose unpalatable things for civil servants.
The FDA, like the civil service itself, is not afraid of reform, but reform has to have substance. The government is facing tough choices. It has to match an ambitious agenda with limited resources and that of course means that the civil service must change how it operates. Driving change in any organisation is difficult, but it is made all the more difficult if it is something that is being done to, rather than with, the very people the government is asking to help deliver their agenda.
We have always approached these difficult issues by rolling up our sleeves, getting embroiled in the detail and seeking to influence. That approach to engagement and partnership only works if the employer is prepared to reciprocate. On performance management and pay we have a unique and valuable insight that we can bring to the table. That’s what good, pragmatic unions do.
After his ill-judged comments in December on the “tepid bath of managed decline” the Prime Minister responded to my letter to say that “government must deliver better for the people we both serve and ministers and civil servants should work in a partnership that is based on trust.”
At the weekend I made these points to the government. We know they’ve got a tough job, every civil servant does, but dealing with tough issues doesn’t have to look like this.
We will now seek to recover some ground on these announcements. We will be meeting with officials this week to go through the detail of these announcements and of course will let you have sight of these when we have them.
In the meantime please do not hesitate to get in touch with any thoughts you have at info@fda.org.uk .
Dave Penman
FDA General Secretary [Post edited 10 Mar 13:43]
|
Rather alarming to read in the following in the Guardian that Labour Together are behind what some of what the government is up to, leaving aside the crassness of calling it project chainsaw.
"Separately, No 10 and the Treasury are understood to be taking a close interest in proposals drawn up by Labour Together, a thinktank with close links to the government, to reshape the state under plans dubbed “project chainsaw”.
The project’s nickname is a reference to Elon Musk’s stunt wielding a chainsaw to symbolise controversial government cuts for Donald Trump’s administration."
I mentioned in an earlier post my scepticism about bright young things who know nothing getting involved in policy, and the photos in the following are an example of what I was talking about.
https://www.labourtogether.uk/meet-the-team | | | |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 15:54 - Mar 12 with 568 views | Churchman |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 15:40 - Mar 12 by DJR |
Rather alarming to read in the following in the Guardian that Labour Together are behind what some of what the government is up to, leaving aside the crassness of calling it project chainsaw.
"Separately, No 10 and the Treasury are understood to be taking a close interest in proposals drawn up by Labour Together, a thinktank with close links to the government, to reshape the state under plans dubbed “project chainsaw”.
The project’s nickname is a reference to Elon Musk’s stunt wielding a chainsaw to symbolise controversial government cuts for Donald Trump’s administration."
I mentioned in an earlier post my scepticism about bright young things who know nothing getting involved in policy, and the photos in the following are an example of what I was talking about.
https://www.labourtogether.uk/meet-the-team |
So if they proceed with this, they will have learned absolutely nothing from the Truss Kwarteng debacle. That cost the country billions and was a direct result of people taking a chainsaw to a process that was there for a reason.
Tear something up? Fine. As long as you fully understand what it is you are shredding the cost/ benefit of it. Truss didn’t. Musk and the gibbongang don’t.
I’m not averse to change. Dear me, I worked in project world long enough so it was to me bread and butter for every day. Normal. It’ll happen anyway but there’s a measured approach understanding consequences, making decisions for reasons then there’s the let’s look good in the Daily Express for a day and get a promotion and bonus reasons.
Looking at the sorry collection of a-wipes in your link, I don’t hold out much hope. | | | |
| Francis Maude Mk. 2 on 19:56 - Mar 14 with 404 views | DJR |
Someone posted the following BTL on the Guardian this morning.
"Re the NHS - to be honest it’s looking like the NHSE England discussion is a distraction. The real policy has been revealed in the HSJ - 50% cuts to the NHS as a whole via ICBs by this December, voluntary redundancy scheme to get rid of people, and THEN outsourcing of back office functions to the private sector.
This is privatisation, and by the Labour Party. Dodgy back room deals with the likes of Serco, Crapita, United Healthcare, maybe even dictated by Trump. Nobody voted for Labour to do this. This is an absolute betrayal of Labour voters and members, and a betrayal of the NHS. And anyway as we know full well in the NHS, outsourcing usually leads to worse performance and huge amounts of work in managing the contracts of errant private providers. And also, as per Grenfell, a lack of accountability and the public being shafted.
Waiting for the detail on policy in May, but it’s beginning to look like Streeting and Starmer are using the cover of the Labour Party to privatise swathes of the NHS and give these rapacious private sector outsourcing companies a few more billion in public contracts. Disgraceful."
This now seems to be reflected in the following article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/14/30000-jobs-could-go-in-labours-
"30,000 jobs could go in Labour’s radical overhaul of NHS
Loss of staff will be at least twice as big as thought, as new NHS England chief tells regional boards to cut costs by 50%"
Leaving aside the fact that this would appear to be more severe than anything the coalition did, it is difficult to think there are 30,000 people not performing any sort of useful function.
Of course, some of it is perhaps rhetoric designed to show that Labour is tough (Morgan McSweeney anyone?) but if it is (and I rather suspect the cuts won't be anywhere near that number) it is not a fair way to treat staff. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
