..cutting civil service jobs is actually going to save money for the government? I get that it might save money in the long term, but in the short term, they're going to have to make redundancy payments - some adding up to years' worth of salary for those they're getting rid of - plus they're going to have to pay benefits to those people if they don't find other work in the medium-long term, not to mention the loss of revenue from their taxes, and if that weren't enough, the remaining staff will have to take over their workload, which means extra overtime and various other bills. Another option for them is to contract out the additional work to the private sector, ie the same staff they've just made redundant who will either work freelance or under contract through another employer, thus being paid twice over for doing the same job they were doing anyway! Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just carry on as usual, because if these redundancy payments come out of already-reduced budgets, there will be even less money in the pot to pay for the services the departments are supposed to provide, or, if the money is coming from another source, why don't they invest it in ways that will actually increase revenues instead? I don't have an economics degree, so maybe I'm missing something, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to raise unemployment levels and effectively pay people to sit at home doing nothing when the country needs all the revenue it can get.