“A mistake that is repeated is a decision" – Anon
Reform deputy leader Richard Tice has argued that “hundreds of thousands” of people could lose their jobs as a result of Labour’s “appalling” budget." (LBC, 06/12/14).
It is therefore comforting that Nigel Farage and several former Conservative MPs who have since joined Reform UK present themselves as concerned about rising employment levels. However, this concern does not appear to extend to workers in local government or the civil service.
Danny Kruger, a former Conservative MP who has publicly defended austerity policies, has stated that Reform UK intends to reduce the Whitehall civil service by approximately 13 per cent.
.“Reform UK pledges to cut 68,500 civil service jobs” (Financial Times, 15/12/25).
Rather than directing any savings from these reductions toward improving public services such as the NHS or education, Reform UK proposes to increase the bonus pool for “high‑achieving” civil servants from £100 million to £500 million.
In addition to cuts within Whitehall, Reform UK has indicated the intention to reduce staffing levels in local authorities. Local government in England and Wales employs nearly two million people. Applying a 13 per cent reduction to this workforce would imply approximately 260,000 redundancies. When combined with the proposed civil service cuts, the total number of job losses would rise to around 328,500.
During the peak period of Conservative austerity, between 2010 and 2016, the civil service workforce declined from roughly 470,000 to 384,000—a reduction of about 86,000 posts. The consequences of those cuts are well documented.
HMRC experienced reduced efficiency, longer waiting times, and increased error rates, resulting in significant losses or delays in revenue collection. The Department for Work and Pensions faced growing delays in processing claims, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as disabled claimants. The Home Office saw a substantial increase in asylum case backlogs, contributing to the pressures visible today.
Other departments—including those responsible for environmental regulation, health and safety, and local planning—experienced staffing reductions that produced delays and declines in service quality. To compensate for diminished in‑house capacity, outsourcing to private contractors increased, as did expenditure on temporary staff and consultancy services.
A further, less visible consequence was the loss of institutional expertise. Experienced senior staff, technical specialists, and policy experts were made redundant, leading to fewer tax inspections, fewer environmental checks, and reduced court staffing—outcomes associated with lower revenue collection, increased pollution incidents, and longer delays in the justice system.
If these were the demonstrable effects of reducing civil service staffing by 86,000, the implications of a reduction on the scale proposed by Reform UK—potentially exceeding 260,000 posts—will be severe.
Given the significant presence of former Conservative politicians associated with earlier austerity programmes now occupying senior positions within Reform UK, these developments are not unexpected. What is more noteworthy is the increasing number of Reform UK supporters who appear willing to endorse the same actors and policy approaches that have contributed to the socio-economic difficulties they themselves identify and express such angry frustration about.
