In a key speech on March 13, PM Keir Starmer outlined the government's programme for "fundamental reform of the British state" [1].

Though presented as strengthening democracy, these changes are part of the continuing restructuring of the state in favour of private oligarchic interests.

The central theme in announcing the latest restructuring is that it will enable "active government", as the way to Labour government's "Plan for Change" with its goals of "national security" and "national renewal". It is to be the latest form of arbitrary government by police powers. In particular, under the signboard of enhancing effectiveness and efficiency, the reforms are directed to enabling both the state and private interests to operate unfettered by regulatory constraint.

According to Starmer, the state is "weaker than it's ever been."

"Politicians chose to hide behind a vast array of quangos, arm's length bodies and regulators, you name it," he claimed. "A sort of cottage industry of checkers and blockers."

The proposed changes are portrayed as a means to deliver results by eliminating bureaucratic obstacles and opposition, thereby enhancing the government's capacity to act decisively. Starmer described the current arrangements as overstretched, unfocused, and ineffective in delivering services and security, truisms used to support a new deliverology, one that requires consolidating the power of the state. Starmer argued that the government must fundamentally reform the British state to better secure national and economic security, thereby renewing public trust (recognising the crisis of legitimacy in which the system is mired) by cutting bureaucratic red tape and directing resources to the priorities of working people. In a globally unstable and rapidly changing world, so runs the argument, a leaner, more dynamic, and digitally-enabled state is essential for delivering results, particularly in public services and infrastructure projects.

Crucially, the assertion is that the delivery of public services is dependent on "national security". "Active government" is, in one respect, to be a new form of pro-war government, under the banner of "responding to security challenges", in conditions of economic chaos and wars of destruction in which Britain plays a belligerent and interventionist role.

Underlying this proposal is a reactionary vision of national renewal that emphasises state and national strength over genuine democratic renewal. Instead of mass direct mechanisms of decision-making, the direction embodied in the plan is towards unifying the polity behind a powerful, centralised authority. It is a government that can act at will, by dismantling bureaucratic obstacles, though framed as "restoring democratic control" over public services.

In this vein, the speech announced the decision to abolish NHS England and bring it back into direct control by the government and the Department of Health. As Workers' Weekly analysed [2], the government's claim of bringing NHS back into "democratic control" is a deception. As well as justifying large cuts, this re-organisation is intended to bring the NHS under the control of the Executive, replacing one top-down system of control with another.

Economically, it is the straightforward cutting of investments in social programmes and boosting military spending [3].

Sweeping changes to the civil service announced

As part of this programme for "fundamental reform of the British state", the government recently announced a series of changes to the civil service.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, speaking on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on March 6, said that the changes are "part of what we believe in that the state can provide both security and opportunity for people."

"That will guide us in our actions, it's upfront in our policies, so we will be radical about this, but it's about getting bang for our buck in terms of the outcomes for the public, it isn't an ideological approach to stripping back the state," he said. Indeed: it rather is part of the programme to consolidate executive rule.

The shake-up focusses on digitisation and stricter performance targets. Underperforming officials could be incentivised to leave their jobs, and senior officials' pay will be linked to performance. A new target aims to have one in 10 civil servants working in a digital or data role within five years, aligning Whitehall with private sector benchmarks. The Cabinet Office will guide the move by avoiding tasks where digital alternatives or AI could do it better, quicker, and to the same quality. The government plans to cut about 10,000 civil service roles, but McFadden declined to commit to a specific figure. Senior civil servants not meeting standards will be put on development plans, with the aim of firing them if no improvement is made within six months [4].

Pre-empting the coming announcements, the civil servants' union the FDA had issued a New Year message back in January, giving their independent view on the need to reform the civil service. Assistant General Secretary Lauren Crowley emphasised the importance of meaningful pay reform for improving efficiency, attracting skills, and retaining talent. She criticised the slow pace of change and called for a long-term strategy based on a pay reform plan. Crowley called for clear objectives, agreed finances, and a new cabinet secretary to lead the charge [5].

In February, the FDA criticised the proposed new performance management framework. The framework will exacerbate low morale, and the resulting recruitment and retention issues, warned the union [6]. And in March, FDA General Secretary, Dave Penman, expressed concern over the government's most recent announcements. He criticised the government's treatment of civil servants, as well as the imposing way in which the announcements were made, urging the government to consult unions and staff before making major announcements in the press. Penman indeed emphasised the need for reform in the civil service, but stated that it must have substance, raising in this sense the question of the aim and content of the changes. He also emphasised the importance of engagement, where civil service employees are involved in what should be a reciprocal relation [7].

The need for democratic renewal

The conception of "change" for "national renewal", with "active government" and "national security", are in direct opposition to the call, in line with the Necessity for Change of the times, for democratic renewal, where people directly constitute an anti-war government, with security based in defending the rights of all. Despite the government's framing of its planned changes as democratic reforms intended to return power to the people, they actually serve to increase executive power and reduce regulatory oversight. This, in turn, ensures that both the state and the private interests it represents can operate unchecked, effectively solidifying the ruling elite's control over society. Its "national renewal" is opposed to the renewal of society.

Governance is no longer about upholding the rule of law, balancing interests, and linking the state and civil society. The balance has been tipped by powerful international oligarchies, who represent the interests of the person of state. Public authority at every level is increasingly the exercise of arbitrary power. The ruling elite are constantly seeking new arrangements, while the state devours itself as political factions and various parts of the existing arrangements contend for control.

There is an alternative

The alternative is one in which the working people themselves constitute the authority and decide matters directly. This means that those who currently deprive the people from power will themselves be deprived from power. The desperation to prevent this alternative from taking root is creating political chaos, for which the answer is being sought in the police powers and the rearrangement of the state around the wielding of those powers.

The government is taking further the rearranging of the state around the concentration of political power in the inner circle of the Prime Minister and eliminating any rival centres of power. In opposition, the will to be of the modern democratic personality demands the alternative in which all speak in their own name, expressing itself in the resistance through which people are speaking in their own name and rejecting the existing conception of authority.

Notes

1. "PM remarks on the fundamental reform of the British state", Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, March 13, 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-remarks-on-the-fundamental-reform-of-the-british-state-13-march-2025
2. "On Starmer and Streeting's decision to abolish NHS England", Workers' Weekly, March 16, 2025
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-06/ww25-06-01.htm
3. "'Surprise' spring budget: presenting cuts on the claims of the people and investing in war as 'national renewal'", Workers' Weekly, April 5, 2025
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-08/ww25-08-01.htm
4. "Labour promises 'radical' shake-up of UK civil service", Eleni Courea, The Guardian, March 9, 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/09/labour-promises-radical-shake-up-of-uk-civil-service
5. "FDA calls for widespread reform across the civil service in New Year message to government", Katherine Hutchinson, FDA, January 7, 2025
https://www.fda.org.uk/news/fda-calls-for-widespread-reform-across-the-civil-service-in-new-year-message-to-government/
6. "FDA challenges 'political rhetoric' over reports senior officials could be dismissed if they fail to make efficiency cuts", Katherine Hutchinson, FDA, February 7, 2025
https://www.fda.org.uk/news/fda-challenges-political-rhetoric-over-reports-senior-officials-could-be-dismissed-if-they-fail-to-make-efficiency-cuts/
7."FDA is not afraid of civil service reform, but it has to have substance", Dave Penman, FDA, March 11, 2025
https://www.fda.org.uk/news/fda-is-not-afraid-of-civil-service-reform-but-it-has-to-have-substance/

Link to Full Issue of Workers' Weekly

RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Weekly Online Archive