According to the FT:
Britain is turning to the private sector to prepare for Brexit, seeking to second consultants to boost a civil service with almost no experience of complex trade negotiations.
Sir Jeremy Heywood, the country's top civil servant, has held talks with companies including accountants EY and KPMG, and the consultants McKinsey, as he prepares for a negotiation with Brussels described by outgoing prime minister David Cameron as “the most important task the British civil service has undertaken in decades”.
Words fail me.
How did we get to this sorry state?
Before answering, note this:
The senior partner of a leading London-based law firm said: “We've got super-smart people who understand the regulatory framework who will be intensely valuable.”
The companies told Sir Jeremy that their staff were already stretched helping clients deal with the fallout of Brexit and that while they want to help, it will come at a substantial price to the taxpayer.
Then weep.
And remember that this is the price of taking back control from the elite.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Dear me.
As I’ve said before, anything the modern Tories do in the name of getting rid of vested interests is only to swap one vested interest with another – usually one that is by the way less publically accountable than the former.
Austerity has stripped out key civil service departments of their ability to negotiate BREXIT and as per usual the private sector is there to clean up.
Any indications what the bill will be for their ‘services’?
Very, very big
“…taking back control from the elite,”
Hahahahahaha!
For some obscure reason, they don’t seem keen to give up control, do they?
No, this is the price of constructing a deeply fake narrative about taking back control from the elite, when all that was ever on offer was a reordering of that relationship. And here we see one example. Organisations and individuals steeped in the practices of neoliberalism: of exploitation, moral ambiguity and the imposition of inequality – and, most of all – the further advancement of the interests of the elite.
Meanwhile, it looks increasingly likely that we’ll have a new prime minister who is a product of the City of London and who owes her political success to that source, or if she (Leadsom) doesn’t quite make it she may well be chancellor (so the prospect of a massive boost to tax haven Britain just got a whole lot stronger). And all this in a government that has no mandate as the one on which they fought the election (budget surplus by 2020, etc etc) is now effectively dead and buried.
It would seem that as with the post banking crisis world, ‘disaster capitalism’ once again creates numerous opportunities for elites to improve their wealth and interests even further. Meanwhile the Labour party continues with the farce that is its 21st century replaying of the Michael Foot years.
I fear her more as Chancellor
Although her tax credentials are not good and may yet account for her
I have no doubt that Leadsom, along with any canny tory MP got their money washed thoroughly years ago by tory accountants. We never get to see tax returns etc. for more than a couple of years back.
‘Meanwhile the Labour party continues with the farce that is its 21st century replaying of the Michael Foot years.’
Ivan -I’m not sure that is a remotely valid analogy the more so that is used by the ghastly media to define what is going on. 40 years on it is manifestly not the same situation. We are near the end of a long dark neo-liberal tunnel whose path of detritus is strewn before us and very visible. There is NOW a grass-roots movement for change in the Labour Party and greater clarity in voicing the anti-austerity argument.
Ivan, I am sure you don’t want Tory Lite v.3, this crisis is different because Corbyn represents the need for change in Labour to become a real rather than token ‘LINO’ opposition even if Corbyn might not be the best person to do it once that transformation has happened. No reply of the 80’s here, in my view.
Simon
Read what Ivan has written here
He does not want, and I do not want, Tory Lite v3
But it is still possible to say that a cult of personality around a leader who does not want to be PM (and I strongly suspect JC does not) is not helpful
Labour has incredibly difficult decisions to make – including a likely split
To say that it needs to manage these processes well and with respect is appropriate – it failed 34 years ago
Richard
As someone who lived in South London during that period and recognised it in John O’Farrell’s book, I agree with Ivan that the analogy is depressingly accurate on many dimensions. Though Michael Foot was a far more charismatic speaker. All we need now is the ‘suicide note’
I’m still unclear of what Corbyn’s vision for society and the economy is. On a bad day I worry that East Germany of the 70’s is somewhere in his mind. A very, very odd place to choose to holiday in, during the 70s. A small clique (elite?) leading a membership where compliance with the party line is non-negotiable?
I’ve been generous enough to assume that he has moved on, though I’ve yet to see real evidence, and it worries me that he appears not to want to listen to those outside his closest advisors. But then neither do I assume that most Labour MPs are Tories in disguise
Corbyn is not an economist. John McDonnell is handling that part of the policy making. Corbyn’s experience is in the international field. This is what the coup is all about – Jeremy has offered members democracy in policymaking, which has been absent since the fiction of Tony Blair’s ‘Partnership in Power’.
Michael Foot never appealed to me as an orator (perhaps it was because I only heard speeches in his later years – it sounded very old-fashioned). Tony Benn was far better. Jeremy’s OK at off-the-cuff short ones.
Simon, just to confirm what Richard has said. You’ll have seen my comments on this blog. They stretch back to before the 2010 election if my memory serves me correctly, including a few guest blogs and none can be considered in any way suggestive or supportive of Tory Lite v3 or any other version. So please refrain from that suggestive smear.
But, like Robin Stafford also comments here, I’m old enough to remember the Michael Foot years. Indeed, I was an active member of my local labour party (branch and constituency) at the time and also my trade union and was a full-blooded supporter of Michael Foot for leader and through his time in office. In fact I joined Labour precisely because Foot became leader, as did many others on the left. And believe me we thought exactly the same as you do now: that Foot represented a return to “real” labour values after the disaster of Callaghan, Healey, and co.
I agree with you, of course, that some things are not the same. We may or may not be near the end of neoliberalism, whereas at that time the “project” had only just begun – though I can honestly say nobody I knew then had an inkling of the depths to which it would take us. But discussions about taking back the party; about the party being more important than the PLP; about deselecting MPs whose views and actions did not accord with their constituency members; about the treatment of Foot by the media; about whether of not Foot had the necessary leadership skills; about whether the public could see/accept Foot as PM; about Foot’s unsullied left wing credentials and his reluctance to compromise them; of the way Foot dressed; of his age and the fact he walked with a stick; and so on, are all very similar to what we see with Corbyn now.
I remember going with friends and fellow Labour party members (all of whom had joined the party because he was leader) to see Foot speak in the run up to the 1983 election. He was, as many will recall, a stunning speaker, even though he walked so unsteadily by then that it took him several minutes to get on stage. And he enthralled and galvanised the audience. Unfortunately he did not do the same for the general public – a situation made far worse by media attention of all of the issues I noted above. And so what we heard as we knocked doors in the run up to the 83 election was completely at odds with what we thought and felt within the party – although entirely consistent with the opinion polls, which most of us saw as right wing media bias and thus dismissed them. The outcome was unfortunately electoral disaster.
Anyway, I’ve said enough to give you a sense, I hope, of why I made my comment about a 21st century version of the Michael Foot years.
Best wishes.
You hit the Labour conundrum on the head
The coalition of the left and democratic power is a difficult one
I note George Monbiot in the Guardian today says it may need coalition, as I do too
Unlike KPMG etc I’ve done enough trade stuff (anti-dumping – 12 – 13 cases)) to know how tough the EC is – devil in the detail & the ECers are masters of detail.
I also did some competition work a couple years back (for heseltine’s mob as it happens) – the EC manufactured the shells (DG Competition) and what passes for UK competition authorities “enjoyed” the result & have never tried again to pull a fast one in the area covered. The UK competition authorities thought they had “smart lawyers” perhaps they did, but they were also corrupt (revolving doors)& I have evidence to prove it.
Looking from the outside, the UK “civil service” seems in general terms both corrupt (revolving doors) & incompetent. The incompetent part being profiled ad nauseum by Richard & this blog with respect to the most important civil service function – the bit that collects money i.e. taxes. Since I am active in the energy sector, the department that appears most compromised is DECC – due mainly to revovling doors.
Perhaps the civil service & its current state is a reflection of the society in which it operates?
Brexit negotiations will end badly for the UK.
The civil service and its current state reflects the fact that Mrs Thatcher dismantled ‘Whitley’ which was the system dating back to the first World War that recognised that the state had to compete for the best minds, thus paying (by gathering data on outside analogues) what the market paid-no more, no less.
Interestingly one of the websites assessing the likely effects of out or in concluded that the effect on the economy would be +/- 0.75% (and reckoned the +/- was anyone’s guess) BUT that everything depended upon the skill of the negotiators, in which field apparently the UK had been notoriously poor for years. Sir Humphrey and his ilk had long since retired to the sun, and their successors just weren’t up to the job…because their successors had gone to KPMG etc!
From the kind of organisations that have negotiated PFIs and outsourcing… and left us with financial and operational disasters
All those EY and KPMG consultants being hastily rebadged as experts in trade negotiations – I know, I worked for them
It costs £100ms just to negotiate the average M&A deal – this will be many, many billions
Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better
Well you could look on the bright side: the Tories came up with idea of a referendum dum dum with zero plan on what happens if out. On the other hand, loads of your taxes will go to that deserving group in UK society: the insultants/con-insultants such as the ones mentioned in Richards blog. A sort of win/lose lose situation – they win, you lose lose and I would not be surprised if Osborne had to raised PAYE taxes to pay for the KPMG et.al. windfall.
I think that if Trade Negotiations are outsourced to the private sector, payment should be contingent on the success of a referendum to approve the deal that has been negotiated.
That would at least be a small step to ‘taking back control’.
so is Brexit actually a corporate takeover?
Looks like it
An you know what that means
This is deeply worrying. The New Zelanders have offered the use of some of their trade team. That might be worth taking up? Sadly I don’t think the EU will have any option but to play hardball. The EU can survive Brexit but Frexit will be a very different matter and given Marine Le Pen is doing well in the polls it might be a possibility particularly if Exit looks any way attractive.
Given also that the EU has been doing trade negotiations almost continuously over the past 50 years there is a probability that the UK team will be playing draughts while the EU is playing chess.
Steve Keen, as a Brexiteer, thinks that we don’t really need to bother much with trade negotiations – apparently few if any of the barriers are more than 2 or 3% – an amount which gets lost in the movements of an exchange rate.
But the worrying bits are the complexity of administration that will attend all these different tariffs as well as the lack of any UK input into common European standards, research and aspirations in the future.
That to me, is where we really have shot ourselves not just in the foot but closer to the heart.
I like Steve
He’s wholly missed the point though here
Tariffs are not the point: regulations are
I’d agree – talk to businesses who are serious about international business and they will say that its the administration, regulations and standards that really matter. Being out of the EU means a significant increase in that burden, both a cost to business and a disincentive to customers in the EU. A strong incentive for businesses to base themselves inside the EU.
Then there is the loss of any input to the definition of those standards and regulations
Just what the ‘experts’ have been saying all along – but then what would they know. I do follow Steve Keen and he writes some good stuff but I suspect that trade is not his strong point. I suspect that his anti-EU agenda is colouring his thinking and maybe blinding him here
The living tentacles of the Giant Vampire Squid wrapped around the face of humanity just fastened themselves more deeply into the body politic?
I was scared before. I think I just passed through ‘terrified’ to some empty space beyond.
This would be hilarious were it not so outstandingly horrible.
thank you for flagging it up.
manda
Pandora’s box has been opened by a ‘groomed’ electorate. Both May and Leadsom are dangerously toxic. Be afraid … be very afraid!
Don’t understand. Why can’t the top mandarins in the civil service handle it, the private sector also has not handled anything on this scale.
We are renowned for our back street boys, making government machinations run smoothly. Bowler hats, pin striped suits, the pink paper.
I am in the dark and also dim, do the civil service routinely outsource matters that are rather taxing. But they get Knighted.
The civil service has, for years, been told it’s useless and government cannot do anything
So they believe they have to ask those clever people in business to do everything
How then does the Govt independently guarantee corruption or bribery does not occur by using accountants to run itself when it has already outsourced its tendering and finance to these ‘men’.
In two words, it can’t
Oh dear I think I mean back room boys, sorry.
Sylvia, my view would be that the information contained in Richard’s blog illustrates that we’ve reached the summit of a situation that has been almost precisely 50 years in the making. Put briefly, it was the Fulton Committee’s review of the civil service in the late 1960s that opened the door to what we see now. Not only did the Committee draw on external management consultants in preparing its reports but one of the Committee’s recommendations – the setting up of a Civil Service Department – which adopted more flexible standards of recruitment made it both open to outside management expertise and facilitated the entry of management consultants into policy making and the policy process.
The Fulton Committee’s aims were well meaning as it was thought that a limited “revolving door” between the civil service and the private sector would create an environment that nurtured learning and exchanges of ideas and perspectives in both directions. But unfortunately, as with so much, as the neoliberal agenda took hold in government, regardless of what party was in power, this shifted more and more to the exploitative arrangement we have now, where vast sums of money are made by consultancy companies while at the same time public policy is bastardised to suit the interests of them, their clients and the few (ie. big business and the wealthy).
To put some figures to it, not long after Fulton central government expenditure on management consultants had increased from £20,000 to £830,000 by 1969. By 1972 this figure hit £4.8 million and by the time New Labour came to power in 1997 it stood at £217 million. By 2006 this figure stood at £1.8 billion, which was in fact lower than the £2 billion spent in 2003-04.
That figure continued to climb throughout the New Labour years, mainly because there were so many IT “disasters” that spending on IT consultants alone in the period between the early 2000s and 2010 hit somewhere in the region of £50 billion.
I can’t now recall what the spend on consultants was by the time Labour lost power in 2010, but I do recall that it had been a matter of great criticism by the Tories and by Cameron in particular, who promised to cut the use of consultants significantly. However, as both his previous government and this have further pursued policies that strip expertise and capacity from the civil service, as well extending and amplifying the trope that anyone who works in public service is a second class worker/person by definition when compared to all those “stars” who work in the private sector, and the further outsourcing of public enterprises, I assume the spend is back to its New Labour heyday. No that that would bother Sir Jeremy Heywood as he has been a direct beneficiary of the revolving door between government and the commercial sector and a cheerleader for it.
Thanks Ivan
Thank you Ivan, that was very helpful! I had no Idea such enormous amounts were involved. It is phenomenally dreadful.
More work for the financial/legal fraternity!
A bit like roofers after a hurricane.