In Defence of Geoff from Defra

For the Populist Right, the Civil Service is the Perfect Scapegoat: Visible Enough to Attack, Powerless Enough not to Fight Back. But Dismantling it Comes at a Price.

If the voices on the right are to be believed, the Civil Service is single‑handedly bringing the UK to its knees.

Well, I say single‑handedly, but they're apparently in league with Trans people, migrants, avocado toast, young people, European elites, Gary Lineker, burqas, low‑energy lightbulbs, oat milk, Greta Thunberg, the NHS, Remoaners, 15‑minute cities, Gary Neville, Oxford students, street murals, vegans, rail unions, cyclists, bilingual signage, the Tube, foreign languages in public, the BBC, the UN, the ECHR, roundabouts, long COVID, pronouns, free school meals, Tofu, gluten free bread, people working from home and - lest we forget - London itself.

“How’s that overthrowing of the government going, Muriel?”, “Ah, just grand Pat, I’ll have the country on it’s knees by next Friday!” Photo by Centre for Ageing Better on Unsplash

In this overloaded, chaotic culture‑war bingo card though the civil service holds a special place, because for the most part it's less visible than most targets, far more boring to explain, and that easier to caricature. It doesn't tend to fight back, doesn't tweet, doesn't sue, doesn't shout "defamation" on GB News. In short, perfect punching bag.

If you're on the populist right, the civil service is the unelected "Blob" stopping brave revolutionaries like Liz "Iceberg" Truss, Robert "Generic-Man" Jenrick and Nigel Farage from fixing Britain with vibes, flagpoles and tax cuts for billionaires. Never mind the fact that many of these people complaining most loudly about the civil service are the same ones who have hollowed it out for over a decade - local government gutted, departments underfunded, oversight outsourced, experts fired. Never mind that the remaining public servants are the only people keeping the country just about semi‑functional while ministers do laps of the studios.

No - if you're a Reform candidate, Tory back-bencher looking for a few clicks or Telegraph columnist, the real problem isn't political chaos, corporate capture or staggering inequality. It's that Geoff in Defra called in sick.

So let's have an actual little look at the subject - what do civil servants actually do? Are they really off more than the private sector? Why does the right hate them so much? And what happens if the culture warriors get their hands on the machine?

"Are civil servants really 60% more likely to take sick leave than private sector workers?"

Yes - but, also no. Mostly: context.

The "60%" comes from comparing civil service absence with broad private‑sector stats. Civil servants averaged around 7.8 sick days in 2024 - that headline "60% higher" comes from percentage rates (public 2.9% vs private 1.8%). This is an outrage‑ready number if you know how to use it.

Posted by Zia Yusuf at 15:22 on 6 August 2025

Except, there's an issue - because the actual measurement methods differ. The civil service uses "Average Working Days Lost per staff year" (accounting for part‑timers and starters/leavers). Most private firms, on the other hand, use simpler measures that tend to undercount. Even the Cabinet Office warns you shouldn't compare like‑for‑unlike.

Raw numbers say civil servants take more sick leave, except they also don't tell you why, and that’s pretty important, because a big factor to consider when looking at this difference in sickness rates, is that the civil service workforce is older on average (sickness rises with age, if you weren’t already aware).

On average, over‑60s take roughly 11 days - 16 - 29s about 7, and when you take into consideration that the average age of employees in the public sector is 44, vs. the private sector with an average of 40 years old, the difference becomes statistically important.

Something to also consider is that civil service roles are also often front‑line or emotionally very demanding. The Department for Work and Pensions - the largest employer within the civil service - spends days telling desperate people why they can't have what they need to survive. In the Ministry of Justice, absence hits 11 days because, shockingly, working in prisons and dealing with human misery leans towards the more stressful side of things.

Mental health accounts for nearly half of long‑term absences, with musculoskeletal issues a close second. This isn't a generation of work‑shy snowflakes. It's what happens when you ask people to hold together crumbling public services with goodwill and paracetamol.

Meanwhile, the private sector's "resilience" looks far more presenteeism to me. If your zero‑hours job doesn't offer paid sick leave, you show up anyway, which, if you think about it, is less “grit”, and more a “motivational poster to justify post-apocalyptic exploitation”.

"Isn't the Civil Service just a bloated bureaucracy?"

If by "bloated" you mean "a shadow of its former self," then yes, absolutely, 100%.

Headcount fell 19% under austerity - from 478,000 in 2010 to a post‑war low of 384,000 in 2016. Departments saw 15–30% cuts; institutional knowledge evaporated. Numbers rose again for Brexit (25,000 roles) and COVID (another 52,000) because reality, as it's wont to do in times of crisis, very rudely intruded. Even at today's 516,000 headcount, you're looking at a service that's pretty much been hollowed out, then frantically rebuilt to handle crises decent planning might have avoided.

Jobs exist in a state of perpetual flux - short‑term contracts, restructures, freezes, "efficiency" drives. Institutional memory walks out the door just when you need it most.

Politicians decry "incompetence" they themselves engineered. They slashed training, then acted surprised at skills shortages. They outsourced essentials to firms that failed or overcharged, then blamed officials for the fallout. They set impossible targets while cutting the resources to meet them, re‑organised org charts, then scolded staff when the edifice creaked.

The civil service didn't choose reliance on £800‑a‑day consultants - this is a direct consequence of firing the experts, losing the memory, then buying the same expertise back at triple cost.

"But civil servants are unelected!"

Yes. That's kind of the point.

The civil service, by design, is meant to be politically neutral. Ministers (elected) set policy; officials implement it. That's a safeguard, not a subversion. When governments change, the lights stay on. Civil servants serve the Crown, not the party, providing continuity and - crucially - frank advice.

When ministers try something illegal, unconstitutional or merely physics‑defying, officials are meant to say so. What's painted by dear Liz and her crew as "obstruction" is literally civil servants doing exactly what they're meant to.

The truth of this doesn't really matter though, because the modern right much prefers the American "deep state" fantasy, fuelled by YouTube and a fundamental misunderstanding of what actual governance looks like. In reality, officials are often trying to stop ministers from doing something unlawful or catastrophic while being accused of bias for pointing out that water flows downhill.

The irony is that these are the exact same people who sermonise about the "rule of law", who suddenly rage when officials, usually politely, note that laws actually exist. If the Home Office says a proposed deportation breaches international law, that isn't necessarily the coup that Jim with his commentary account wants you to believe - it's basic risk management.

But acknowledging this sort of detail and / or process would require understanding the difference between political decisions and operational delivery - between wanting something and making it work. It's far easier to blame faceless bureaucrats than admit your brilliant plan was written on the back of a fag packet at a heated focus group.

"Why are right‑wing parties obsessed with bashing the Civil Service?"

Because it's a fantastic distraction.

Instead of admitting their policies aren't working, blame "the blob." Every failure - housing, health, immigration - becomes the fault of a faceless bureaucrat who's secretly a Marxist.

Housing crisis? Clearly the fault of woke planners insisting every new build comes with a communal quinoa garden.

NHS waits? Obviously down to sinister diversity officers replacing operating theatres with safe spaces.

Immigration chaos? Remoaner saboteurs personally hiding passports in the Downing Street stationery cupboard.

Inflation? Entirely caused by vegan canteen menus at HMRC forcing staff to trade in black-market bacon.

It's pure misdirection.

After 14 years of Conservative rule, it's so much easier to point at Sir Humphrey than admit austerity, Brexit (never Brexit) and a merry‑go‑round of incompetent ministers did immeasurable damage. The civil service is visible enough to blame and powerless enough to avoid fighting back.

Reform UK has perfected this particular game - depicting officials as lazy, left‑wing saboteurs while offering no credible alternative. It's politics for the algorithmically enraged - all full-fat, deeply satisfying accusation, with none of that pesky accountability.

There's also a darker and somewhat more sinister game afoot: justify purges and replace career officials with loyalists, just like we're seeing with the geriatric orange gameshow host's recent firing of his stats head because they produced numbers he felt uncomfortable with (i.e. they were a reflection of reality), or Orban's years-long capture of institutions.

The pattern goes:

• Undermine trust in independent bodies

• Claim they're biased against "real people,"

• "Reform" them by stuffing them with partisans.

Rinse. Repeat.

Today it's Zia Yusuf moaning about sick leave. Tomorrow it's loyalty tests to ensure you're "ideologically aligned with the government of the day".

It's a slowly moving, insidious creep of authoritarianism, starting with dodgy stats, ending with the erosion of independence. Once you've convinced people the civil service is the enemy, remoulding it into something compliant becomes not just acceptable but necessary. And by then, unfortunately, the safeguards are gone.

"But surely some of them are useless?"

Of course - and if you hadn't realised that already, may I please introduce you to humans?

Every single profession has dead wood. Some doctors are awful. Some teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach at all. Some actors are all teeth and zero skill. Some MPs… well.

The answer isn't to abolish medicine, scrap schools or completely abolish parliament - it's training, standards and accountability.

Yet any inefficiency within the civil service becomes cause for complete demolition - always of someone else's job. Meanwhile, the senior civil service - the people making the big calls - averages extremely low absence and works in conditions that would snap many private‑sector executives.

These aren't Iannucci-esque clipboard wielders. Permanent secretaries include former partners, academics, ex‑military officers, economists and lawyers with decades of expertise - people who could earn far more elsewhere, yet have chosen the thankless work of governance.

The real question I would love to ask the people baying for the head of every civil servant out there is whether they want a system that rewards rigour, independence and memory - or one staffed by yes‑men who think Magna Carta is a cheese and international law is a suggestion?

The moment you prioritise loyalty over competence and you get entourages that tell ministers what they want to hear, not what they need to know - which is how you get policy disasters like the poll tax, the bedroom tax and Brexit's magical thinking.

The civil service's job isn't to be popular. It's to be right. Sometimes that means telling ministers their "brave" idea is illegal, unworkable or will blow up in court.

A few lazy officials are manageable. A service too frightened to speak truth to power can (and will) completely wreck a country.

"So what is the problem with the Civil Service?"

For the most part, it's not bone-idle laziness, pronouns or secret socialism. It's structural neglect.

Chronic underfunding, high turnover, political meddling and endless "reforms" that change the organogram, not the outcome. Departments have run on fumes for a decade - asked to do more with less while ministers publicly slate them for not performing miracles.

Political meddling compounds it. Ministers who watched too much Thick of It bypass officials with special advisers and consultants who tell them what they want to hear. Policy gets made in echo-bubbles, detached from operational reality, then dumped on civil servants with "make it work somehow."

Then there are the reforms - "efficiency drives," "digital transformations," "culture change programmes" that mostly produce slide decks and away‑days which absolutely no one wants to attend. Each government thinks the right consultant and punchy acronym can fix the state.

Treat the service like a football and people leave. The best go private or academic. You're left with the vaguely enthusiastic but not particularly competent.

Rinse. Repeat.

"What would a Reform government actually do to fix it?"

Nothing you'd want.

Look at the rhetoric on migrants ("invaders"), climate scientists, trans people. Look at promises to slash civil service jobs with no plan for the services those people deliver. That's not "efficiency" - it's a shortsighted purge.

"Drain the swamp" politics that many people seem desperate to import from the United States doesn't produce better institutions, nor is it meant to. It replaces independent officials with loyalists who won't ask awkward questions about law or feasibility. It's not reform; it's capture. First, demonise institutions. Then claim they're failing. Then "fix" them by filling them with people who owe their jobs to you.

The civil service isn't the problem. They're next in line. After them: the judges ("activist"), the media ("biased"), the universities ("woke"), anyone with independence to point out the emperor's wardrobe malfunction.

Be wary of those who shout "freedom" while salivating at sacking thousands of civil servants, scrapping rights law and dismantling the BBC. Their endgame isn't a smaller, better state - it's a weaker, more obedient one.

When someone vows to replace "unelected bureaucrats" with political appointees or to "reform" institutions by purging dissent, they're not building accountability, they're creating an environment that allows full control. They don't want government to work better, they want it to work for them.

Here's the truth they'd rather left unsaid - the UK civil service - flawed, stretched, exhausted, is still one of the few institutions holding the line, doing the dull but necessary work of running a country while everyone else plays politics for the cameras.

Before we throw them to the wolves, it’s good to pause for a second and ask: Who, exactly, benefits when experts are silenced, truth‑tellers are fired and only yes‑men remain?

Because I can tell you one thing, it sure as hell isn’t the public.