You would think from some of the commentary out there that, instead of Dame Antonia Romeo, the cabinet secretary, publishing her objectives on Tuesday, she had instead authored her own version of the Communist Party Manifesto, advocating to seize control of the means of production of wealth.
The latest almost hysterical response came from Danny Kruger MP, who leads Reform’s preparation for government. “Reform will not surrender to the Whitehall machine” screams the headline in the Telegraph. Reform are riding high in the polls and Kruger has worked at the heart of government, but disappointingly the article is not a considered analysis of how to get the government machine working. Instead, it’s just another in a long line of attack pieces, full of contradictions and emotive rhetoric to stir up the base.
He says the prime minister has “empowered his new cabinet secretary with the authority to design and deliver the legacy of his time in office”. Yet in the same breath says that Dame Antonia has “granted herself” the five powers in her objectives which he then goes on to “paraphrase”. Doing some heavy lifting in that piece is the word “paraphrase”, because it’s actually just wilful misinterpretation to justify the Reform narrative of attack the blob.
The job of the civil service is to advise ministers, giving objective, impartial, evidence-based advice. The job of ministers is to decide. Then once a decision is made, the civil service is there to deliver, effectively and efficiently. Ministers’ job is to hold the service and its leadership to account for that delivery.
Dame Antonia’s objectives set this out clearly. The cabinet secretary is the principle policy adviser to the prime minister “drawing on expertise from departments, other sectors, and international best practice to develop creative policy solutions” as she sets out in the document. There’s been much commentary on this, particularly around whether being the principle policy adviser is a political role. Some of this has been mischief making, but much I suspect is a misunderstanding of how government works.
Politicians need political objectives, that’s what politics is supposed to create – high-level political ideas and solutions. In opposition that’s done by parties using their own resource and sources of influence. When they come into government those ideas, new ones and the response to events, are shaped by advice from the civil service. The government machine has experience and expertise, but policy advice isn’t just about being an expert in the field, it’s drawing on the expertise from inside and outside of government to give ministers the broadest advice possible and a range of options. Being a minister is tough, they are rarely expert in their policy field, so giving good policy advice enables ministers to understand the consequences of political choice.
Government is a complicated and messy business, with no simple solutions. Trade-offs are always required and often it’s grappling with issues that are difficult for even a government to control, as the current crisis in the Middle East ably demonstrates. Good policy advice from people who have spent their career dealing with this from the inside is vital to good political decision making. Chucking that in the bin and surrounding ministers with people who come at issues from a pre-determined point of view does not make for good decision making. Good ministers are never afraid of frank advice and uncomfortable truths, because if you actually want to make a difference, those need addressing.
Kruger’s “know your place” narrative demonstrates a weakness, not a strength. Being afraid of advice and evidence that may contradict your world view is fine for columnists and shock jocks, but it’s a recipe for disaster in government.
Dame Antonia’s objectives go on to set out her responsibility to ensure delivery, which you would think would be broadly welcomed. She sets out her role in ensuring Cabinet government works effectively, as well as “hold permanent secretaries to account for delivering the prime minister’s and government’s agenda, setting clear expectations and supporting high performance, to drive execution and impact”. What’s not to like?
Kruger says “responsibility for ‘delivery’, getting things done on behalf of the public, should rest with departments, led by ministers who are accountable to Parliament and the public”. You may, like me, feel confused here as they both appear to be saying the same thing. It’s difficult to get underneath, but at its heart it’s just a mistrust of the civil service, so he keeps coming back to “politicians, not civil servants in charge”.
Good ministers understand that holding the civil service to account for effective and efficient delivery is a key part of their job, both in departments and at the centre of government. Consistency and focus are also key, which is why reshuffles are always so damaging to good government. Darren Jones’ appointment as chief secretary to the prime minister should be a good example of this. Focus on delivery and high-level objectives then drive accountability for them, not getting lost in the weeds.
Jones in his “move fast and fix things” speech in January recognised that getting government to work effectively is a joint endeavour between elected politicians and able civil servants. Dame Antonia’s objectives set out from the civil service side how she and it will deliver their side of that partnership. She didn’t need to publish these, but in doing so has demonstrated visible leadership and a commitment to accountability. She is no stranger to the brickbats that get thrown her way for any number of reasons; that doesn’t make it any less disappointing, particularly from those who say they are serious about preparing for government.