I answer the question in an article for the Times (£) today, in response to Francis Maude’s announcement yesterday. But for those CoffeeHousers who can’t vault the paywall, here’s the relevant passage:
“I have been told of an internal report that makes the argument sublimely well. Before last year’s spending review, the Treasury asked a group of outside experts whether plans for a 40 per cent headcount reduction at the Department for Communities and Local Government were too ambitious. Their response? It wasn’t nearly ambitious enough. The staff cut ought to be at least 90 per cent. Responsibilities for fire prevention could be transferred to the Home Office; responsibilities for troubled families to the Education Department; responsibilities for . . . you get the picture. And as for what remained, such as dishing out money to local authorities, much of that could be replaced by a simple algorithm. Just imagine what tour guides of the future would say: ‘Over there, where that calculator’s plugged into a phone line, once stood an entire government department. Weird, huh?'”
It’s an idea that opens a vista on all sorts of money-saving possibilities for George Osborne, as he struggles to keep within the bounds of his deficit reduction plan. But, as I go on to say in my article, this isn’t merely about the Exchequer’s balance sheets. As the government attempts to spread power outwards, a super-sized civil service is often superfluous and sometimes inimical to their aims. The temptation may be to refrain from the exhausting work of pruning back Whitehall, to treat it as a second term issue — yet the benefits would accrue now.
Comments