Why is everybody ignoring the massive double standard in Labour’s latest cash-saving plan? Why is the Party of Work relying on AI to replace civil servants?
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced on the morning of Sunday (March 23, 2025) that she was ordering the civil service to cut its running costs by 15 per cent, by the end of the decade.
This will include the loss of 10,000 civil service jobs.
But Reeves has also claimed that no frontline services may be affected. This does not seem feasible.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Remember, the Cameron government reduced civil service numbers significantly, which led to backlogs in areas like border security and the processing of benefit claims. Court backlogs worsened after funding and staffing reductions. Staff reductions at HM Revenue and Customs led to long call-waiting times and tax compliance issues.
We have already seen that cutting the civil service – even only back office and administrative roles – will harm frontline services too, with departments having absorbed substantial cuts in staffing, budgets, and operational capacity.
Further cuts on top of those made during the Cameron-era austerity measures are far more likely to lead to reductions in services.
A 15 per cent cut in running costs on top of all that, without affecting frontline services, would likely require major structural reforms, automation/AI, or significant efficiency gains—none of which are easily achieved in the short term.
Oh, but Reeves mentioned AI, didn’t she? She said
cutting running costs by this amount was “more than possible” given advances in technology and artificial intelligence.
So it seems she is planning to replace civil servant jobs with artificial intelligence. Isn’t this a fundamental contradiction?
Labour today styles itself as the “party of work”. In the last few weeks alone, Labour MPs have justified their demand for cuts in disability benefits, that will force sick and disabled people to seek work they can’t do, by saying “the clue is in the name” – the name being “Labour”.
And historically, the party has championed worker rights, fair wages, and job protection. But by cutting civil service jobs via AI automation, it risks:
-
Contradicting its pro-worker stance – The government should be creating secure, well-paid jobs, not eliminating them.
-
Hitting lower and middle-income workers hardest – Many civil service roles targeted for AI automation (administrators, case workers, customer service roles) are likely to be filled by the working-class people Labour claims to support.
-
Weakening public services – AI can improve efficiency, but replacing human expertise with algorithms in areas like benefits processing, border control, and tax services risks errors and injustice.
Labour often criticises Conservative governments for job cuts and austerity. But if it implements AI-driven redundancies, it could – should – be accused of continuing the same approach under a different name.
The argument that “efficiency” is the priority sounds very similar to rhetoric used during the Cameron-Osborne austerity years.
And of course, cutting 10,000 jobs at the same time as forcing around a million disabled people to look for work is insanity.
There might be a way to justify it – if the job losses were coupled with an ethical plan to support displaced workers, that would be a way forward.
With clear pathways for affected workers to transition into new roles – inside or out of government – it could provide a means of enhancing productivity, and prosperity.
Without that, the government seems to be prioritising cost-cutting over job security – and is merrily alienating its traditional voter base.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Why is the Party of Work relying on AI to replace civil servants?
Why is everybody ignoring the massive double standard in Labour’s latest cash-saving plan? Why is the Party of Work relying on AI to replace civil servants?
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced on the morning of Sunday (March 23, 2025) that she was ordering the civil service to cut its running costs by 15 per cent, by the end of the decade.
This will include the loss of 10,000 civil service jobs.
But Reeves has also claimed that no frontline services may be affected. This does not seem feasible.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Remember, the Cameron government reduced civil service numbers significantly, which led to backlogs in areas like border security and the processing of benefit claims. Court backlogs worsened after funding and staffing reductions. Staff reductions at HM Revenue and Customs led to long call-waiting times and tax compliance issues.
We have already seen that cutting the civil service – even only back office and administrative roles – will harm frontline services too, with departments having absorbed substantial cuts in staffing, budgets, and operational capacity.
Further cuts on top of those made during the Cameron-era austerity measures are far more likely to lead to reductions in services.
A 15 per cent cut in running costs on top of all that, without affecting frontline services, would likely require major structural reforms, automation/AI, or significant efficiency gains—none of which are easily achieved in the short term.
Oh, but Reeves mentioned AI, didn’t she? She said
So it seems she is planning to replace civil servant jobs with artificial intelligence. Isn’t this a fundamental contradiction?
Labour today styles itself as the “party of work”. In the last few weeks alone, Labour MPs have justified their demand for cuts in disability benefits, that will force sick and disabled people to seek work they can’t do, by saying “the clue is in the name” – the name being “Labour”.
And historically, the party has championed worker rights, fair wages, and job protection. But by cutting civil service jobs via AI automation, it risks:
Contradicting its pro-worker stance – The government should be creating secure, well-paid jobs, not eliminating them.
Hitting lower and middle-income workers hardest – Many civil service roles targeted for AI automation (administrators, case workers, customer service roles) are likely to be filled by the working-class people Labour claims to support.
Weakening public services – AI can improve efficiency, but replacing human expertise with algorithms in areas like benefits processing, border control, and tax services risks errors and injustice.
Labour often criticises Conservative governments for job cuts and austerity. But if it implements AI-driven redundancies, it could – should – be accused of continuing the same approach under a different name.
The argument that “efficiency” is the priority sounds very similar to rhetoric used during the Cameron-Osborne austerity years.
And of course, cutting 10,000 jobs at the same time as forcing around a million disabled people to look for work is insanity.
There might be a way to justify it – if the job losses were coupled with an ethical plan to support displaced workers, that would be a way forward.
With clear pathways for affected workers to transition into new roles – inside or out of government – it could provide a means of enhancing productivity, and prosperity.
Without that, the government seems to be prioritising cost-cutting over job security – and is merrily alienating its traditional voter base.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
We have an Education Secretary who wants to overwrite history with lies