Chancellor Rachel Reeves (Image: PA)
If Michael Howard’s Conservatives had won the 2005 general election, might Britain be in a better state today? Making his bid to become Prime Minister, Mr Howard promised to slash government spending by £35billion, abolish 168 public bodies, ditch 235,000 civil service jobs, and cut taxes by £4billion.
The lost that election to and , who went on another debt-fuelled spending spree. By the time the returned to power in 2010, Mr Howard’s plans had not only been shelved, but forgotten completely.
is hardly Howard’s heir. She is the latest in a long line of politicians who bleat about wasteful spending and (almost certainly, although it remains to be seen) deliver nothing. Her predecessors, both Labour and Tory, have turned Whitehall into Leviathan, with relative spending at levels not seen since the Napoleonic Wars.
But 200 years ago, that spending was at least disbursed in defence of the realm. Today it’s frittered away on adult cycling lessons, Pride parades, and cosy hotel accommodation for illegal immigrants. Slash this waste, and Britain might have a chance of getting back on track. But ‘ promises to “totally rewire how the Government spends money” and “scrutinise every pound” ring hollow.
For one thing, the Chancellor probably isn’t even the right person for the job. After all, we’re still unclear whether she was an economist or a customer sales rep. We’re also unclear whose side she’s on.
If she was serious about cutting waste and boosting productivity, why did she sign off on a £10billion public sector pay rise that wasn’t tied to improved performance? And why has she promised £22billion to the , without setting explicit conditions or objectives?
Any real economist would know that bigger budgets are only justified if they result in improved productivity. If the really cared to get more juice from the squeeze, she’d surely start by demanding improved productivity in the most obviously bloated part of the public sector: the civil service.
Since 2016, the civil service headcount has ballooned by 30%, from 2.9 million to 3.8 million. But have public services got 30% better? Are they 30% more responsive? In fact, have you noticed any discernible improvement whatsoever since 2016? No, me neither. If anything, I see more litter, more crime, more potholes, and worsening services.
Assuming that each additional civil servant is paid an average of £35,000 per year, the fully loaded cost of employing these 900,000 extra people is more than £40billion per year. Which makes the £1.5billion saved by abolishing the winter fuel allowance look like especially small beer.
Now, to make matters worse, the Public and Commercial Services union is demanding that these superannuated civil servants be allowed to work 20% less – that is, four days per week instead of five – for the same pay.
Apparently, this is “essential for a happy and healthy life”. But if civil servants can get away with four-day weeks, surely it’s a sign there are too many of them?
Enough, too, of 20-something PPE and History graduates who’ve never held a proper job in their lives. The country needs to be relieved of the squatters who are more interested in their own pensions than in the very taxpayers whose hard-earned cash they pinch to feather their own nests.
Instead, perhaps the Chancellor could take a cue from ‘s book, and bring some new blood to Whitehall? Britain sorely needs experienced businesspeople and captains of industry to inform improved decision-making at the heart of government, and to take an -style axe to the appalling waste that pervades the public sector.
What’s amazing and encouraging is that Britain is stuffed full of brilliant brains – like the inventors of graphene at the University of Manchester – who would doubtless be willing to lend a hand. This country has more cultural, economic, and scientific influence than almost any other. Self-made billionaires like James Dyson, Richard Branson and Tim Stokely seem like they’d be delighted to help get Britain back on its feet again.
The question remains whether the Chancellor will be humble enough to seek outside help. If she refuses, and becomes just the latest in a long line of politicians who talk tough but deliver nothing, Britain will remain stuck in its current doom loop of high spending and low growth. End of.