I am willing to give one cheer for the disappearance of a whole government department, the Science, Innovation and Technology department. I would give more cheers if I thought things would be better and overheads were lower from the changes. I will be surprised if they do slim government as a result, as I suspect there will be the rebuilding of what it does and who does it through a complex redistribution of tasks and posts. The expanding Business department will be the main “winner”, gaining staff and work. Some activities will pass to DCMS.
The critics of the move claim this will mean less representation for science and technology in decision making. The supporters say all departments need to be alert to scientific and technology threats and opportunities. The government Scientists already operate across government depending on need, from the Government Office of Science. There will be a Minister for AI in the Cabinet Office.
The danger of these reorganisations is they incur substantial costs and divert energies away from the subject itself to the complications of the Whitehall power structures and musical chairs. It is difficult to point to what the outgoing Department has achieved. I asked recently that the Lords Minister set out what benefits we are getting from the government’s £3bn programme of introducing AI to its own processes, and what greater staff efficiencies it would generate. It was a friendly question giving the Minister the chance to explain how they were spending this large sum and what good it was doing. There was no reply, so presumably there was no briefing. The suspiciously round sums of the original announcement of AI money without precise programmes was always a concern. I thought now they were well into spending it they could tell us on what and how we will gain.Their inability to do so invites more questions about how this cash is splashed.
This change in the architecture of government to handle the most exciting scientific and technological developments now underway goes unexplained. It would be good to see what the plan for transfer is, how much it will cost and who will control it. I doubt they have worked all that out. Officials look for promotions or for a better deal and politicians lazily dismiss a whole department whilst wanting its work to live on elsewhere.Costs go up. No one is responsible for controlling them. In business if you scrap a department it is usually to take out cost and reduce functions. Government works by different rules which usually ensure reorganisation brings more staff and more cost. AI too in the public sector may do the same, impeding not advancing labour productivity.
July 28, 2026
After the Covid experience, a lot of us would like less “science” representation in decision making. But like you, I suspect this will not save money (or disastrous decision making).
Abolishing the Foreign Office would save us a few quid and make us a lot safer. Or just scrap the BBC licence fee. They’ve been busy telling everyone there’s a hose ban in our area, but check on the water company website today and what do you know…no ban! Everyone running around with watering cans and it’s just the Beeb”s climate alarm poppycock.
July 28, 2026
Perhaps it would be simpler to ban and get rid of all quangos, and make Ministers completely responsible for the management of their own departments.
July 28, 2026
It is clear to us tax payers what is going on. The Public Sector has just one objective. That objective is not to serve the public as the term Civil Servants would like to suggest. The Public Sector, organised and directed by the Unions is set up to be self serving. It has adopted a permanent left wing bias and will maintain that thanks to the prime influencer in that sector of society, the Unions.
The idea of saving tax payers money is unthinkable and simply does not enter into the minds of the Public Sector, the objective they have adopted thanks to the Union left political ideology is to extract ever more from the tax payer as a method of increasing their control. The unaffordability of ‘our Public Sector’ will simply get worse up and till the total collapse happens.
We are constantly shocked by yet more taxes being introduced to fund yet another ‘progressive’ priority, more tax demand on top of already record levels of taxation. The tax payers i.e. the Private sector are seen and have become the servants of the Public Sector in a complete reversal of what sustainable society should be doing.
The final redoubt of public protection the democratic process has been breeched. The Unions are now running political representation the results are and will continue to be dire for the tax payers.
July 28, 2026
Good morning.
Hardly a “Bonfire of the Departments”, is it ? Just staff shuffled from one office to another. But then again, what minimal savings there might be can be spent propping up the, “Number 10 of the North”. And then there is the bus fare cap ? Again. Hardly a saving is it, given the rampant inflation we are all experiencing.
Of topic.
On my journey to work today, I noticed some “Tax the rich” flags flying. I wounder if Westminster Council will take them down ?