“redirect the money to the councils” was the animating promise in a vote that gave Yes a commanding majority, though agreement ran more readily to shrinkage than to the exact shape of the cut. The platform’s most respected Yes voices treated Whitehall’s expansion, quangos and middle-management layers as evidence of a state losing sight of service.
That case was less about abolishing the state than stripping out duplication and distance. One of the floor’s strongest Yes arguments called for “local councils where it can actually benefit people day-to-day”, while another warned against “too many ministries, too many bodies”; even the wryest complaint imagined officials having to “set up another department to look into ways of reducing existing departments”.
No voters did not defend every layer of bureaucracy, but objected to the target being set before the work was examined. The floor’s most-respected No case said “An arbitrary reduction completely misses the point”, and another preferred a “root and branch review to cut out duplication and waste”; their concern was that cuts would drive out capable staff, weaken specialist ministries and leave the frontline thinner rather than the back office leaner.
The two sides therefore talked past each other over what counted as waste. Yes voters pointed to AI, quangos and “paper shuffling”, and some tied the post-2016 growth to “the known consequences of Brexit”; No voices answered that modern government administers more services, needs customs and operational staff, and should first improve pay, performance and coordination. This was a self-selected online vote, but its pattern is clear: the demand was for a smaller centre, not a settled blueprint for delivering one.
The room voted for a smaller state; it did not vote for a finished plan.
30 Opinions
Whitehall has ballooned by over 30% since 2016, yet every single public service feels completely broken. We’ve got over half a million pen pushers across 400 quangos writing endless reports and passing the buck, while local councils go bust and roads crumble. Maybe cut the central civil service and redirect the money to the councils where it can actually benefit people day-to-day
Maybe even by a half. Reduce impulse to interfere & regulate for its sake & the need for much of modern State disappears. Bureaucracy loves complications & thrives on inconsistencies & contradictions. Flat Tax - get rid of most if not all allowances - and 80-90% of HRMC! Net Zero is a hoax - get rid of all Climate Change scamming costs. We might be able to pay decent pensions & proper end of life care. ‘Socialists’ let’s tax more & ram through murder old & unborn kids bills
ERM YES! It should be made smaller , instead we have ministers currently , that have no experience never had proper jobs and are frankly useless!
The laughable problem with the UK system of government is that 'they' would have to set up another department to look into ways of reducing existing departments ... eh 🫤
Ballooned since 2016, I wonder why? So yes it should be cut, but only one way to make that happen and most others voting yes wouldn’t be choosing that option. These were the known consequences of Brexit but sadly some were more concerned with taking back control. That control needs governing, whether it’s more customs staff, drug approval, or trade and industry dept negotiating trade deals
5,000 administrators ran the British empire at its peak, with one and paper. Now we require 520,000+ with computers to administer just the UK! Clearly, it’s a scam hiding yet more welfare for pretend jobs, that contribute nothing to the economy and produce nothing!
Again, only after a considered review. Every Government sees cutting the Civil Service as a way of cutting waste. And successive governments have failed to make significant savings, even though there must be some to be made.
Yes, deep cuts are required. And civil servants does not mean doctors, nurses, police, etc. Speaking from first hand experience the civil service is rife with inefficiency, layers of unnecessary administration, unaccountable semi-autonomous bodies and unproductive roles not aligned with service delivery. You could probably cut 30-40% of civil service without impacting front-line services.
Reading the different names of the ministries, they all seem important and necessary. Do they communicate among themselves? Share information that would help each other? That is important for keeping costs down. Removing a third of ministries, would not work well, I can see them becoming unwieldy as being able to specialise would become difficult with fewer staff.
A third is random but definitely deep cuts should be made. Most of the paper shuffling can be done by AI now all those tick boxes can be scanned in seconds!