Labour’s new advisor to the party's policy review on industrial strategy, Lord Adonis, tells Heather Spurr all is not well between Downing Street and Whitehall.
.
Labour’s new advisor to the party’s policy review on industrial strategy, Lord Adonis, tells Heather Spurr all is not well between Downing Street and the mandarins
Lord Adonis this week warned Number 10 is in a “state of warfare” with Whitehall, just weeks before sweeping civil service reforms are announced by the government.
Adonis, appointed Labour’s industrial strategy adviser last week, said the government was becoming “deeply unpopular” in Whitehall because of its “anti-civil service rhetoric”, while ministers felt a “deep sense of frustration” with public officials.
The coalition is expected to announce far-reaching reforms to the civil service within the next month. It follows reports David Cameron’s former chief adviser Steve Hilton wanted to slash the number of civil servants by 90 per cent.
Adonis said:
“It’s not a good idea to have a state of warfare between the government and the civil service – which appears to be happening at the moment…
“The government is becoming deeply unpopular in Whitehall by its anti-civil service rhetoric and I deeply regret that because it’s possible to be in favour of civil service efficiency whilst also supporting the professionalism of the civil service.
“I deeply regret the attacks on civil service moral which are taking place at the moment. I don’t quite understand it either because at the end of the day, if the government wants its programme delivered, they need the civil service because no one else is going to do it.”
Until last January, the former transport secretary was head the Institute for Government, which seeks to improve efficiency in the civil service.
• Top civil servant accused of being “SNP lacky” 4 May 2012
• Forget Sugar, listen to Adonis – a man who knows a thing about transport 19 Apr 2012
• Civil service complacency on black applicants is not good enough 17 Dec 2010
When asked why he thought hostility exists between Whitehall officials and government, Adonis answered:
“There is clearly a deep sense of frustration about how things are going in Whitehall at the moment – which the government holds. I don’t think it’s justified. I was a minister for five years, I worked in Whitehall for 12 and I was constantly impressed by the professionalism of the civil service.
“There’s a need to improve efficiency and that is taking place – but I’’s all the more important when you’re improving efficiency that you support the integrity and the professionalism of one of the best administrative systems in the world.”
Damaging civil service moral would have a negative impact on Whitehall, Adonis added, explaining the government “needs to demonstrate” further cuts “are not going to harm essential public services”.
Earlier this month, the Telegraph revealed civil servants will be “rated” on their performance at work as government ministers, from the prime minister down, grow increasingly frustrated with institutional failures.
34 Responses to “Adonis: There’s a “state of warfare” between Number 10 and Whitehall”
Lord Blagger
Damaging civil service moral would have a negative impact on Whitehall, Adonis added, explaining the government “needs to demonstrate” further cuts “are not going to harm essential public services”.
============
Based on the Fantasy that the government isn’t broke.
All those trillions owed in pensions, borrowing, PFI, guarantees. None of that is services.
The civil servants are smart enough to realise that their pensions are kapput.
Lord Blagger
“needs to demonstrate” further cuts “are not going to harm essential public services”.
==========
Meanwhile, in the real world, spending last quarter. Cut or increased?
Ah yes, that annoying item, facts. Spending is up yet again.
Blarg1987
A guarentee does not neceesary mean the state has to pay i.e. parents being guarentors if mortgages for their kids etc.
Most of the so called debt is worst case scenario assumption which it is right to assume but not necessarily accurate.
Lord Blagger
Agree. The figure for the liability under any guarantee is the present value of the expected losses. The sum insured will be much larger and doesn’t matter. Even that needs to be offset against the present value of any premiums that are paid. In the case of government guarantees for pensions etc, this is zero.
You see the left also making this mistake with derivatives. Quoting the nominal figures, when the real money at risk is a fraction. Then on the money at risk for a given contract, you have to include any netting which reduces it drastically too. Then if you claim its bad for the economy, its hard because that is zero sum game.
Likewise with pensions debts such as the state pension. You can’t extrapolate future payments, add them up and claim that’s the debt. You have to discount them to get the equivalent of debt, so you can compare against gilts, or any other debts. For a liability that means using the rate you expect the accrued debts to grow, and inflation if you have no assets. If you have assets, then you can offset by the present value of the assets, discounted using an asset rate.
The government commits fraud here. For the civil service pensions, it doesn’t use the growth rate of liabilities it deliberately makes the debts smaller by fraudulently using an asset rate to discount, when it has no assets held against the debt.
Anonymous
Yes, to cover the damage which is being DONE to those services by cuts.
If I spend 10 on A, and 10 on B one year, and 5 on A and 15 on B another year, A has had a cut. This is so simple a three-year old can understand it, but not a Tory like you.