Cabinet Office to axe a third of roles in civil service shake-up
McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is one of Sir Keir Starmer's key lieutenants and the minister responsible for reform of the civil service. A source said he was "leading by example" with the cuts to his own department.Of the jobs to go, some 1,200 posts will be lost through redundancies or people not being replaced if they leave. A further 900 are being transferred to other government departments in an attempt to avoid duplication of work.In recent weeks the government has announced plans to make "radical" reforms to the way the civil service works, including cutting the costs of running government by 15% by the end of the decade.McFadden wants to introduce performance-related pay for senior staff and new rules under which those failing to meet standards could be sacked if they do not improve within six months.But he has resisted, in public at least, setting a target for how many civil servants' jobs would be lost. Today's announcement of the moves at the Cabinet Office suggests that the cuts might go further than some had expected.
A Cabinet Office source told the BBC: "Leading by example, we are creating a leaner and more focused Cabinet Office that will drive work to reshape the state and deliver our Plan for Change."This government will target resources at frontline services - with more teachers in classrooms, extra hospital appointments and police back on the beat."In a call with staff this morning Cat Little, the Cabinet Office's top civil servant, said she wanted the department to be "more strategic, specialist, and smaller".Since 2016 the number of people employed by the civil service has grown from 384,000 to more than 500,000. The rise was partly driven by preparations for Brexit and new functions the British state did not have to carry out during EU membership. New officials were also hired to deal with the Covid pandemic.The Cabinet Office has grown the most of any department proportionally, approximately trebling in size since the EU referendum.Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union which represents some civil servants, said: "The Cabinet Office has an important role to play operating the machinery of government, driving efficiency and reform, and ensuring other departments are fully aligned with and able to deliver the government's missions."Blunt cuts of this scale will make it harder to play that role and could impact on delivery across government."Prospect will engage with the Cabinet Office throughout this process and will seek an assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies."
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
74 years on - and Britain is still struggling to balance the books
The past often looms larger than the present as one grows older. So I was grateful to receive a letter from a loyal reader who found a newspaper cutting revealing the contents of the 1951-52 Budget. At the time I was still in my Silver Cross pram blissfully unaware of the privations of the nation. But as a financial journalist who has reported on Budgets since the mid-1970s, the news was depressingly familiar. It dated to the final days of the post-War Government. The occupant of No 11 seeking to balance the nation's books was Hugh Gaitskell. Hailing from the moderate wing of Labour, he was the Rachel Reeves of his time. Tax and spend were the order of the day, but the welfare state was still in its infancy and handouts on today's scale were a dream. Dominating the Budget was defence of the realm. On the eve of the Korean War, Britain was spending 8.5 per cent of national output on the military. That was sharply down on the peak during the Second World War. It puts in perspective Keir Starmer's pledge to devote 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product to defence by 2027 and the undertaking at the recent Nato summit to eventually raise this to 5 per cent of GDP. In contrast the big consumers of Government resources in 2025-26 are welfare, the NHS and education. Spending on these was minuscule, compared with arms, in 1951-52. A key similarity with today is that the UK of 74 years ago was up to its neck in borrowing, debt and interest payments. Defeating Hitler was the only goal that mattered for Winston Churchill's Cabinet and in 1951 the ratio of debt-to-GDP stood at a huge 200 per cent. Britain has suffered three successive shocks to the public finances this century. The global financial crisis, Covid and soaring energy bills after Russia's invasion of Ukraine have sent the national debt soaring to 100 per cent of annual output. But remarkably that is half the level of 1951. The cost of servicing all that debt – including war loans from the US, savings certificates and Government bonds – was also far higher then. The annual interest bill was £215 billion in today's money – almost twice the £126 billion cost of servicing the national debt today. Those urging Reeves to loosen her fiscal straitjacket may find solace in the 1951 deal. Britain was deep in debt but survived. Taxation then was a simpler affair. Dominated, as it is today, by income tax, it was boosted by a surtax on the wealthy. National Insurance, now worth £199 billion a year to the exchequer, was near invisible. The biggest change to the tax system came after Britain joined the EU in 1973. It brought the Revenue the gift of VAT, which this year is set to raise £214 billion, making it the second biggest revenue-raiser after income tax. In 1951, when consumer spending power was modest, purchase tax raised a miserable £310 million or £3.8 billion today. One ever-present element of Budgets is alcohol duty. A few pennies off a pint is still seen by No 11 as a way of soothing the troubles of working people. As long as they can find a pub that's still open after the Chancellor's latest tax raid.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: New Trump tariffs spoil the party
Donald Trump has proved a bit of a party pooper. There we were last week, celebrating strong results from Microsoft and other members of the 'magnificent seven' clan, plus some decent figures here from several of our biggest enterprises, and pretty spectacular ones from Rolls-Royce. The S&P 500 and FTSE 100 indexes of leading shares touched all-time highs. Trade negotiations seemed to be plodding along, with a decent deal between the US and the EU, even if businesses on the Continent were upset that it wasn't as good as the agreement that we in the UK got. Then, bang, the full list of tariffs was announced, coming into effect on Thursday for any country that had not closed a trade deal with the US. It includes some beefy figures. Switzerland was stunned to discover that it would be hit by a 39 per cent levy. You may not feel sorry for what is one of the richest countries in the world but it's rough on others. For example, South Africa gets 30 per cent and India 25 per cent. These figures will almost certainly be negotiated down and there are all sorts of exceptions. But meanwhile there is huge disruption. Until the end of last week the view of the markets was that global business was nimble enough to cope. Now they are not so confident. And it isn't only the Swiss enterprises that are being hit; it is also American ones. You see that best in the impact on Amazon. It produced some stunning results on Thursday and the shares were trading around their all-time high, valuing the company at well over $2.5 trillion (£1.9 trillion). Then came the details of the tariffs. Its share price fell by more than 7 per cent. It's silly to read too much into one day's market movement, but it's a useful reminder that Americans are being hit by Trump's trade policy, not just foreigners. We don't know how the cost of the tariffs will be carried. Some may be absorbed by exporters. But they can only do that for a while as we have seen when there are sharp currency movements. If the dollar suddenly weakens and they therefore receive less money in their own currency, exporters to the US eventually will have to increase their prices. What we do have is a feel for the extra revenue the US expects to receive. Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, estimates it will be an extra $300 billion a year. That's equivalent to about 1 per cent of national output. If a third of that ends up being paid by importers squeezing their margins and two-thirds by consumers in higher prices, that's a noticeable dent on living standards. Some items will go up by a big amount, and while many won't, the headlines will shock. The tax revenue will be useful, of course, but as the US federal budget deficit is running at 6 per cent of national output, it doesn't go far towards closing the gap. What happens next? Disruption is never good and even if, as seems realistic, world trade does settle down, there will be lasting costs from the tariff war. What will matter even more is whether, irrespective of all this, the US economy continues to grow at a decent clip. It managed to do so in the second quarter, at an annual rate of 3 per cent. But there are worries. Every time there's a weak number, as there was on Friday with jobs growth, the markets wobble. The housing market has gone soft in many areas. Consumer sentiment is fragile, though up a little in recent months thanks to booming share prices. So markets need to stay strong to maintain consumer confidence – and vice versa. It's a virtuous circle, but as we all know, that could flip. You can see why Trump is so hostile to the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. The one thing that might ensure the boom continues a while longer would be a cut in interest rates. The Fed didn't move last week, while here the Bank of England is widely expected to reduce rates on Thursday. It was a stunning July for British investors and shares here remain solid value compared with US markets. The UK will probably gain from US tariffs, given the favourable deal we negotiated. But August will, I am afraid, be a less comfortable month.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Huge sum Ed Miliband's green policies will add to every family's energy bills as PM's pledge to cut costs in tatters
ED Miliband's Net Zero policies will cost every household £389 a year by 2030, Tory analysis today reveals. The Labour government has pledged to totally decarbonise Britain's energy grid within the next five years. 4 4 4 They plan to do this by splurging vast amounts on new wind and solar farms as well as banning new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. Brits have already spent £700 million this year to pay wind farms to STOP producing energy because the National Grid cannot cope with energy surges. The government's dash to go green will send the cost of bills rocketing to a whopping £22.8 billion by 2030, Tory number crunchers say. This will leave the government's pledge to cut £300 from energy bills in tatters, according to the research. Instead it will end up adding another £389 to the cost of household bills for 27 million UK Brits. Tory MP Nick Timothy - who carried out the research - said: 'Energy becomes more expensive with each day Ed Miliband remains in office. 'While Miliband blames fossil fuels for higher bills, he is pumping up prices by throwing more government-imposed costs onto energy bills. 'Wind and solar are being propped up by a complicated web of hidden cash to hoodwink you into thinking they are cheap. But they are not. 'Renewables will cost billions more. This is Ed Miliband's world – and you're paying for it.' Sir Keir Starmer is under massive pressure to act on UK energy costs - which are some of the highest in the world. Keir Starmer's deranged drive for Net Zero with eco-zealot Ed Miliband is a threat to UK's national security- here's why In stark contrast the US - which uses more fossil fuels - has far lower prices. Donald Trump used a meeting with the PM in Scotland earlier this week to launch a blistering attack on wind farms for pushing up prices and scarring the countryside. In toe-curling scenes, the PM sat ashen-faced as the US President unleashed both barrels on his wind farm push - branding them a 'con job'. Speaking at his Turnberry golf course, Mr Trump fumed: 'Wind is the most expensive form of energy, and it destroys the beauty of your fields and your plains and your waterways.' Urging the PM to lift the ban on new oil and gas drilling, he added: 'You can take a thousand times more energy out of a hole in the ground this big - it's called oil and gas.' The analysis carried out by Mr Timothy's office looked at the hidden cost of renewable energy by trawling through official figures and research papers. It found that Brits pay billions of pounds to subsidise the building of renewable energy plants, like wind and solar. But the National Grid - which carries electricity from power plants to peoples homes - is very old and cannot cope with large surges of energy. This results in a barmy situation which means the government actually PAYS wind farms to stop turning when it is too windy. Some £700m has already been paid this year to turn wind farms off. Wind farms are also paid more for their energy than fossil fuel providers, the analysis found. Offshore wind will cost £113 per MWh under the latest contracts. The average cost of electricity last year was £72 per MWh. These direct subsidies for renewables inflate the cost of energy bills. There are also extra costs known as 'Balancing Costs' - the name given to the process the National Grid has to pay to ensure balance and supply of power is maintained daily. These charges end up being passed onto consumers in higher bills, researchers said. 4 The study found the hidden cost of renewables on our bills was £12.3BN in 2023/24. This is predicted to hit £22.8BN by 2030. This is just the estimated cost to Brits's bills over the next few years - and the overall cost of going green by 2050 is far higher. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated it will cost a massive £803 billion to hit Net Zero by 2050. A spokesman for the department for Net Zero said: 'These claims are fundamentally misleading. 'They wilfully ignore the benefits of clean power and wrongly assume the required network infrastructure will not be built over the next five years. 'Only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from fossil fuel price spikes.' Time to act now – or we all pay price IT was the most excruciating television I have seen in years. By Nick Timothy, Tory MP for West Suffolk Sitting next to the Prime Minister, Donald Trump said Labour's taxes on North Sea oil and gas 'make no sense' and he called Ed Miliband's wind farms a 'con job'. Keir Starmer looked like a rabbit in the headlights, because he knew what Trump said was true. The eco policies this Labour government is pursuing simply make no sense. They are spinning us a lie. The government tells us we must urgently hit Net Zero targets because the cost of fossil fuels are unaffordably high. But renewables cost more money and push up bills. They say Britain must build more wind and solar farms so we can wean ourselves of foreign gas and become energy sufficient. But at the same time No10 bans new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea - leaving us more dependent on imports. And the government tells us this dash to go green will create thousands and thousands of new jobs. Yet the trade unions who actually represent energy workers say Labour's zealous eco policies could cause tens of thousands of well-paid British workers to be laid off. It is a mad Alice in Wonderland world where down is up and up is down. Ed Miliband has gone through the Looking Glass. His policies are the stuff of the Mad Hatter. And today I can reveal that Labour's Net Zero drive will cost an estimated £23 billion a year by 2030. That is the equivalent of slapping another £389 a year onto the cost of living for households. It is a cost this country cannot afford. Let me give you a few examples to show you just how barmy our energy policy has become under 'Red Ed'. First- the oil and gas industry. Just weeks after winning the election, Labour banned new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea. Furious trade unions said that up to 30,000 UK jobs could be lost, but their dire warnings fell on deaf ears. But the most ridiculous thing is that Britain still imports oil and gas taken from the very same seabed from Norway. So, Norway gets to keep the taxes, profits and jobs, while the UK goes without. It is a grotesque example of self-harm. Second - the bizarre case of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire. It imports wood from halfway around the world to burn, yet the UK taxpayer has spent billions of pounds in green subsidies on the power station. This simply makes no sense. Third - the sky high cost of wind and solar energy. Labour has set the UK insane targets to quadruple offshore wind and double onshore wind in just five years. But energy produced by these wind farms is actually MORE expensive. Ed Miliband has promised wind farms a fixed price of £113 per MWh for the next 20 years. That is 50 per cent HIGHER than the average cost of electricity. The cost of building new wind and solar farms is also enormous. An estimated £40 billion a year will be spent upgrading the National Grid, and rolling out new pylons and battery storage sites. Worst of all, wind and solar are even paid NOT to produce energy. This is because our creaking National Grid cannot handle big surges of energy. So when it is particularly windy they have to pay wind farms to switch off. This year alone we have paid £700 million to wind farms to STOP generating power. It is bananas. Brits also have to pay for environmental levies. These are extra charges baked into energy bills to pay for the development of new greener energy supplies. Labour are sending environmental levies hurtling towards £14.8 billion in 2030. The PM promised he would cut energy bills by £300 by the next election. But the opposite is true. They are getting bigger and bigger. No wonder President Trump thinks we are mad. Our energy costs are twice those in America. As a result their economy is booming while ours is stagnating. The US President could see the truth and was unafraid to say it. Britain needs to completely change course. It's time to junk the clean power target and support energy policies that actually work. We should take the US President's advice and 'drill baby drill' in the North Sea. We should expand nuclear energy. And we should ditch our expensive green energy levies and subsidies. Otherwise we remain Ed Miliband's mad world – and we will all pay the price.
