I’ve never quite understood the fear that ‘the right’ have of the civil service. On the one hand they’re dismissed as soya latte swilling woke ideologists, who’d faint at an off-colour joke. Then in the same breath they’re a masterful fifth column, who’ve captured the state from successive elected politicians with a unified collective will to progress their “left” agenda.
Danny Kruger MP, who leads Reform UK’s preparations for government has published his latest missive on “fixing the centre of government”, his third policy article on their emerging plans. It’s clear from these articles that Reform UK are doing some serious thinking, and each policy piece is more focussed than the last. Many clever people have taken up column inches in this fine publication, lamenting the centre of government’s ability to support the prime minister and coordinate and deliver change across government. The Institute for Government focussed their not-insignificant-brains on the subject before the last election, proposing quite radical reform.
As most people know, identifying a problem and fixing it are two different things. Like the previous article from Kruger, it starts off with a fair bit of analysis that many could understand on the size of the centre of government and the need for stronger support for ministers and better delivery. Their proposal, for an Office of the Prime Minister and Department of the Civil Service to replace the Cabinet Office, in many ways echoes what IfG were proposing. Although it skirts over the variety of roles the Cabinet Office now performs. It’s too easy to just say everything else will be dispersed among departments or that the Office of the Prime Minister – with just a few hundred staff – can just assume those responsibilities.
The Office of the Prime Minister will also be exclusively filled with political appointees. The Department of the Civil Service will be non-ministerial, which seems an odd decision given their approach to political oversight and control.
All too quickly though, and with each subsequent paragraph, you can sense the vitriol and grudge driving the proposals, with a few international comparisons, anecdotes from civil servants and pantomime villains thrown in to justify it.
At the heart of this is an ideological obsession about the role of civil servants. This fear that control has been lost and the fifth column has taken control. Indeed Kruger even suggests that “it appears that the people at the top of the civil service have seen the weakness of the current government as an opportunity to extend their power”.
Reform UK will abolish the role of cabinet secretary and effectively replace it with a chief of staff, carrying out almost exactly the same roles, but politically appointed. You can feel the quiet rage when Kruger talks about this proposal.
He wrote previously about Antonia Romeo’s “self appointed” powers when she had the temerity to publish her objectives. He took particular exception with the idea of the cabinet secretary being principal policy adviser to the prime ,inister, a function that has been part of the role for yonks. This, he wrote, puts her “in charge of execution, policy, decision-making, and the machinery of the British state”.
The same format applies in departments. Chiefs of staff will advise ministers while permanent secretaries will execute the orders. Just in case there’s any creeping influence from an impartial civil servant, ministers will have the power to hire and fire their permanent secretaries. Private offices are also to be entirely appointed by ministers, ensuring no cross contamination, plus there’ll be more special advisers for good measure.
Reform UK have decided that the civil service is not to be trusted or valued. Their role is entirely to do what they’re told. And of course, that is in part true, but it is also there to advise with impartial and evidence-based advice. It’s almost as if this is what Kruger and Reform UK fear most. Not only will ministers be surrounded by political appointments, they’ll also be located away from departments in a central hub, a moat to keep out any conflicting ideas and ensure central control. There’s a terror that ministers might be captured by impartial civil servants bringing in facts or alternative views and they’ll hypnotise ministers like Kaa in the jungle book. I’m picturing Gareth Davies in the Home Office singing “trust in me” to a home secretary as he tries to explain that a giant wave machine might not be an effective deterrent to the small boats crisis.
Good ministers know they need challenge. They know that policy ideas in opposition inevitably lack detail and understanding of the complexities of governing. Good policy advice takes in a range of views, weighs up the evidence and crucially should provide ministers with options. It’s tough being a minister, they need good quality support that includes recommendations and plans B, C & D because, for all sorts of reasons, Plan A doesn’t always work. That is nothing to be feared.
Challenge is not opposition, it’s how better policy is refined and delivered and you don’t get effective challenge surrounding yourself with believers whose very job is in the hands of the minister they are advising.
This Reform UK’s ideological obsession shows a weakness, a lack of confidence. It’s an isolationism of ideas, driven by fear of the alternative or challenge. It’s not radical, because radical would be about being effective. Better government is radical, this is just Kruger’s safe space.
Ironically Reform UK’s proposals, which rail at the civil service for woke inspired group think, will simply replace it with their own isolated group think. They continually reference things like PCS’s motions at their conference on a potential Reform UK government to justify the need for an ideological purge at the top of government.
It will also create turmoil at the top of government. No minister will want to inherit a group of staff who have been personally appointed by a previous minister. Over 50% of ministers changed or left government at the last reshuffle, imagine the impact that will have if literally hundreds of civil servants also move or leave with ministers. As permanent civil servants are excluded from the senior teams, all institutional memory will be lost. Talk to any civil servant who supports minister and they’ll tell you the difficulty in maintaining momentum and continuity when a minister changes, never mind the entire top team and private office.
Reform UK’s ideological obsession shows a weakness, a lack of confidence. It’s an isolationism of ideas, driven by fear of the alternative or challenge. It’s not radical, because radical would be about being effective. Better government is radical, this is just Kruger’s safe space.