The Civil Service used to be held in high regard in terms of their expertise and knowledge. Was this diluted when we joined the EU, such that the Civil Service can no longer provide the impartial advice Ministers should receive, and thus avoid some of the errors made by Ministers, or did Ministers ignore their advice?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Maybe this is is the case but it seems like bad factionalism in the Labour Party across the board. I don't know if it's just McSweeney who's driving it and/or if it's other people with grudges at a local level as well. I also see that a bunch of Greater Manchester cllrs have been suspended as well to do with the Whatsapp group.
I also saw last night that former MP Ruth George has seemingly been blocked from standing again as a county councillor in Whaley Bridge for no apparent reason (presumably just factionalism).
I don't know if it's a lack of impartiality or a lack of knowledge. I've had a few experiences of low key involvement in supporting policy making in my own field. In all cases, the civil servants were extremely, wonderfully smart but their knowledge was often quite theoretical and they lacked deep and practical expertise. Also, they filter advice to ministers which is fine if they truly understand it, but that didn't seem to be the case. One time I suggested that the experts be introduced to the minister and the reaction was horror. Which is not my experience in the private sector where CEOs often want to hear advice themselves directly
Iskra
Established Member
Starmer wanting to send British troops as peacekeepers to Ukraine. We’re going to need a bigger army…
It's clear that military spending is going to have rise quite substantially as a result of the changed US worldview. Some of that spend will inevitably on increasing the size of the army.
And let's guess, Labour will get the flak for the Conservative cuts in defence reviews a decade ago.
As an aside, I think the correct assessment it "we need a more capable armed forces" - the real value we can add to a European Conflict is in Ships, Planes and Equipment, not manpower.
Iskra
Established Member
If we’re being fair, both have been equally guilty of defence cuts. I remember the 1998 review under Labour being particularly savage.
Appreciated, but all the things you’ve mentioned need manning, or if we aren’t manning them people need to train someone else’s people on them.
We also need to be weary of having too high a proportion of our limited forces deployed on the Russian border, where it can be easily destroyed or bogged down leaving us vulnerable elsewhere.
Alternatively, is this a political ruse by Starmer, as it looks like we’re trying to do our bit for European defence, while knowing full well that Putin is unlikely to accept a NATO peacekeeping force on his?
In recent years, expenditure was focused on high tech solutions rather than manpower, because the perceived threat was not from traditional warfare. Thus the numbers of armed services personnel have reduced, and now it looks as though they need to be increased. However, it takes time to recruit and train staff, so don't know when the number of fighting personnel will reach the require level.
(I'm sure it has been said that the number of MoD Civil Servants exceeds that of armed services personnel!)
It seems to have confirmed many of the current programmes, QE Carriers, Eurofighter/Meteor. I can see that there were more significant reductions for the army, but realistically the British Army of the Rhine wasn't really relevant any more. Certainly the cuts were less damaging than those of the 2010 defence review.
Let's also remember that if the Conservatives disagreed with any of the 1998 cuts, they could have put programmes in place to reverse them - and they didn't, instead often they reduced numbers on some of the replacement programmes that Labour put in place even further.
They certainly do need manning, certainly, but often in the public there is a focus on infantry numbers - and of course the right-wing obsession with National Service - which aren't really the best contribution we could make to a modern war in Eastern Europe
It does feel like a good way to try and get a better settlement, and if it did go ahead, would be a good way to learn from the experience of modern drone warfare. Though, of course, Ukrainian/Russian/Soviet force design and doctrine is very different to our own.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
as part of a European peace keeping course though? he isn't sending in the Durham light Infantry all alone!! Our entire army would fail to fill Wembley stadium so our contribution is going to be small!
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It does and it doesn't.
The UK Civil Service is still one of the best in the world when they're left to get on with things.
But.
The UK Civil Service isn't left to get on with things. Everything has become so much more politicised.
Politicians now expect their civil servants to be slavish blind followers of the faith. Dissent, however intelligent or constructive it may be, is simply Not Tolerated. The people who rise to the top are the ones whose principles align with those of the government. And when that government goes so do all the people who were at the top of the Civil Service.
And that's across the spectrum. The chief of the Competition and Markets Authority has just been sacked by Rachel from Accounts because he wasn't sufficiently "pro-business", i.e. he was doing his job as a regulator to prevent monopolies from forming and business people didn't like him doing it. So he's been jettisoned to be replaced by someone more "business friendly", i.e. someone who will roll over and have their tummy tickled.
Of course you don't want Civil Servants to be outright obstructive, the politicians are the one with the mandate after all. But where it all falls down is when the politicians with the mandate are bona fide idiots.
Of course we'd need to draw such personal from the working age population.
As things stand, the numbers of over 65's is due to rise as a ratio compared to the working age population.
The ONS has an interesting tool which shows how this would play out of you change different factors:
UK population projection explorer - Office for National Statistics
An ONS interactive tool showing UK population projections based on changes to life expectancy, fertility and migration.
www.ons.gov.uk
Almost whatever you select (other than reducing immigration) the 2030 numbers are about 32* people of retirement per 100 of working age, when 2022 was 29. That may not sound like much, however it's an extra 10%, all of whom have to be funded.
* For those who are interested, if we cut immigration to zero the ratio increases from 32 to up to 40 (as maximising the child per women to 2.1 from the current 1.4 makes it rise significantly)
Snow1964
Established Member
It appears it is being named as one of the 3 main contributors to a jump in inflation to 3%.
3% is over the Bank of England target of 2% so could potentially lead to a rise in interest rates (or at very least stop them going down) so everyone with a mortgage will be paying due to the school fee VAT
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If so then it will drop out of the figures in a year's time, so it's not a long-term impact.
Just in time for increased employment costs to start bleeding through the supply chain towards consumers.
My reading is that's already happening. Service sector inflation, where employment is a high proportion of costs, is still rising strongly, and I suggest that part of the increase in food price inflation is due to higher employment costs in the supply chain.
Where they can, employers will have got their retaliation in first by not waiting to increase prices.
Surely this just highlights the folly of the Bank of England being responsible for managing inflation, but its own policy lever being interest rates.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Given that the main causes of inflation recently has been from fuel costs, political uncertainty, and blatant profiteering, I feel that the impact of wages is on inflation is greatly over-stated by people with political agendas.
Snow1964
Established Member
Wage inflation (or growth in average weekly earnings, to use National Statistics name) is currently 5.9% (or 6% including bonuses).
But that is effectively a spot rate compared to 12 months ago, and bit misleading as it is reported that taken over 2-3 years is similar, which suggests many didn't get a rise post pandemic but are getting catch ups (and of course rail workers did too).
All rather suggests statistics can be presented in selective ways to suit a narrative
brad465
Veteran Member
This was what happened when Osborne raised VAT to 20%: inflation was well above target for about a year, but then dropped off towards the BoE target once the VAT rise was out of the equation.
The Bank of England's mandate seems now to be about keeping asset prices inflated, or at least that was what it seemed to be up to from 2009-2021, with near-zero rates and a money printer in overdrive.
Normally when inflation is on the up, the BoE increases interest rates, not cuts it. The Monetary Committee must have had some early indicators of January inflation - the private school VAT impact must have been known about - but they still cut interest rates earlier this month. Political interference? (This is the same BofE which snookered Liz Truss.)
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
They've also got the NI employer tax increase coming along with a rise in minimum wage which will have a direct cut through to service sector inflation as wages are lowish in this sector so these changes will have a materially impact to costs. Impact will feed through into inflation but also in lower job demands and thats hardly a recipe for driving the much needed growth.
The BoE also has a secondary objective of supporting growth. The 'normal' response to low growth is to cut interest rates to encourage investment, but that obviously is in opposition to the aim of curbing inflation. I've seen various criticisms of their performance over the last few years, for example they suggested the energy price shock due to Ukraine was merely temporary, so didn't raise interest rates quickly enough.
Another thing to note from the ONS bulletin https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/january2025 which I haven't seen the media pick up is the Core Inflation rate.
If that rate of inflation which strips out some of the more volatile elements is high, it suggests inflation is entrenched and may not be as temporary as some posters here are suggesting.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Core inflation is a key measure the Monetary Policy Committee look at so any further interest rate cuts are likely to be hold to latter part of the year to see the evolution of that measure.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That's a "stagflation" situation, difficult to get out of. One of the few possible solutions is increased alignment with the EU to improve international trade and productivity.
Just imagine how big a mess it could have been if Liz and Kwasi had been incompetent.
Assuming that aligning with Europe is likely to improve growth. Europe is stagnant economically.
Parts of Europe are stagnant economically, and even then Britain being outside of it has been a significant part of the stagnation. There's huge potential for growth all round if we were to join forces in some form.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Parts of Europe are stagnant.
Spain's GDP grew by over 3% last year. The Spanish prime minister who oversaw all this believes inward migration- and the fact the Spanish government welcome it- is a big part of the reason why their economy is doing well.
Something for Keir to think about as he carries on doing his Karaoke Farage act.
As a Whaley resident who has campaigned for Ruth I am baffled by this.
Both as MP and County Councillor she worked tirelessly for her constituency and achieved some good outcomes.
I suspect that she is too far to the left for the current Reform appeasing Labour party. She - shock horror - once introduced J Corbyn top a local rally.
Onyro-adup my party card has gone back
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Apparently she is "anti-semitic", unlike Keir Starmer's non-Jewish adviser who says that left wing Jews aren't really proper Jews and just really like the chicken soup.
I wonder when Keir will finally twig that people don't go and see the pub tribute act when the real band is in town.