Part of the theory, and it was only that, held by politicians by all parties was that selling the Civil Service would reduce the pensions burden but they ignored that –
– a) the new employers still had to pay them so added the pension-contributions cost to their contract fees; and
– b) on top of the overheads was a new component, a profit element not applicable in State ownership.
Worse, the governments allowed any old spivs anywhere in the world to buy the agencies. so just sending UK tax-payers' money abroad (the profits and dividends) and losing proper oversight and control.
The huge gold-plated pensions tale was a Press lie encouraged by politicians to help their case. The most you could ever gain in the Civil-Service Pension Scheme was half your final salary, only if you had completed a full forty years' service; and your pension is taxed above quite a low threshold. The number of civil-servants on high 5-figure salaries was never very large anyway because the vast majority of civil-servants were and are on quite ordinary administrative and technical work with commensurate pay. Many were on ordinary trade work and wages.
The Scientific Civil Service and academia, were particularly hard-hit because they are not generally in the public eye. So politicians found them an easy target in cuts that failed to understand the work's purpose and value to the nation, only its nominal running-costs.
Engineers? Yes, theCivil Service included very many, very good, dedicated Engineers and Scientists; but they too were all swept up in this gigantic failure as many Government agencies were engineering and scientific bodies.
The common myth of the Civil Service is that demonstrated by what Ady thinks it is: a vast army of administrators doing Nothing Useful on stratospheric pay, and all in Whitehall. A myth based on utter ignorance.
There have to be high-level Civil Servants in Whitehall, to liaise with and try to advise the Government, with each others' Departments and for some, with overseas Governments' representatives; but even if you include their support staff they are a tiny fraction of the Service as a whole.
The problem is that most politicians of all parties, and most journalists, are too idle to do what should be axiomatic for them: to understand broadly what most other professions, including the Civil Service, actually do.
Their knowledge of Science and Engineering even at basic lay level is abysmal, encouraging the common perceptions that the epitome of knowledge is being "tech-savvy" – i.e. nagging 'Alexa' to turn the TV on, not designing such instruments; of Engineers being washing-machine technicians on high call-out rates, and Scientists as arcane alchemists in white coats.
So they think, "What country needs engineers and scientists?" Or if we do need them, ask can these professional people get by on modest pay, poor employment security, the threat of being sold to some bunch of spivs in America or China; and perhaps worst, being accorded no understanding and respect.