Starmer’s Government and Dominic Cummings Share a Common Concern: The Civil Service

“Dominic Cummings was right,” is a statement no individual with serious aspirations in Labour Party politics would publicly utter regarding Boris Johnson’s unpredictable former chief adviser. However, this sentiment is frequently expressed in private by senior officials within the current government. The subject of this agreement is not Cummings’s perspectives on Brexit or Elon Musk, but rather ‘Whitehall’—the term used by the political establishment to denote the complex network of institutions and civil servants tasked with executing the government’s agenda. Cummings has consistently asserted that within Whitehall, “failure is normal” and that “confident public school bluffers,” rather than individuals possessing genuine policy expertise, hold sway. While politicians across generations have voiced comparable criticisms, few have done so with such unreserved intensity. Sir Keir Starmer’s address on Thursday was principally intended to provide greater clarity to a skeptical public regarding his government’s trajectory, elaborating on the five missions he previously outlined in opposition. A secondary objective of the speech was to invigorate Whitehall, following his accusation that too many civil servants were “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline.” While in opposition, numerous Labour figures believed the Conservatives had hindered their own administration by fostering an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with the civil service. Presently, few hold that perspective. According to one prominent government adviser, “The biggest disappointment of going into government has been the quality of the civil service.” Another commented, “The Cummings analysis is where we are in lots of ways.” A senior government source stated, “Dominic Cummings was right about Whitehall. But I blame him and the Conservative Party for 14 years of low pay, bad leadership and demoralisation which means we don’t have the right people in the right places.” Regardless of where responsibility for Whitehall’s shortcomings is placed, this frustration is increasingly becoming public. Peter Hyman, the Labour adviser who conceived Sir Keir’s ‘missions’ but did not join the government, observed in the New Statesman last week that “barriers within the state” impede the execution of Starmer’s agenda. He described it as “astonishing” that many senior civil servants continue to depend on “clunky cabinet committees” and outdated procedures. For certain members of the Prime Minister’s senior team, the deficiencies within the British state are inherent to its structure. One government adviser remarked, “10 Downing Street is a ridiculous place to run a major economy,” adding, “You go from a modern open plan office in opposition to Downing Street where you’re all scattered around like kids in a big house who’ve gone off to separate bedrooms to do their homework.” Nevertheless, imprecise ambitions to relocate the prime minister and his staff to the adjacent Cabinet Office and convert Downing Street into state rooms for hosting dignitaries—a concept also previously considered by Cummings—are expected to remain unfulfilled. An official lamented, “Can you imagine how long it would take the civil service to make that happen?” Many would deem this assessment unjust towards the civil service, which frequently serves as a scapegoat for political shortcomings but is unable to publicly defend itself. Indeed, Labour figures concede they were not adequately prepared for government, a factor contributing to the swift departure of Sue Gray, Sir Keir’s initial chief of staff, after only three months in the role. Even among civil servants who recognize Whitehall’s systemic weaknesses, there is a consensus that the prime minister must assume a more proactive role in directing the system to achieve desired outcomes. One individual commented, “Starmer appears to confuse process with outcomes.” They elaborated, “You can set up a child poverty taskforce, OK. But what do you want to do about the two-child benefit cap? You still have to make political choices and officials can’t do that for you.” In addition to establishing a child poverty taskforce, Sir Keir has constituted a series of ‘mission boards’ intended to advance his agenda across each of the five core areas. Each board is presided over by the pertinent minister; for instance, the health mission board is chaired by Wes Streeting, the health secretary. Alex Thomas, a former senior civil servant now affiliated with the Institute for Government think tank, proposed that Sir Keir himself would be a more effective chair for these boards if his objective is “action and dynamism across the system.” Thomas asserted, “The British system of government responds to ministerial and particularly prime ministerial involvement and leadership … If you leave it to the civil service, however much talent there is, it will end up missing the mark because it lacks that political direction and that authority.” Individuals close to Starmer concede that the mission boards have not yet reached their full operational capacity. These entities are slated to become more public-facing in the near future, conducting meetings beyond London and increasing efforts to integrate external governmental expertise. However, the primary mechanism through which the prime minister intends to advance his agenda is through “stock takes.” These meetings involve Sir Keir convening those accountable for each mission at Downing Street to assess their performance based on data from their respective areas and to inquire about their proposed improvements. This concept was initially developed by Sir Tony Blair, acting on the counsel of Michael Barber, his delivery adviser, who has recently rejoined the government. The regularity of these stocktakes is set to increase soon, according to a senior government source, who added, “If we are saying that this is the mission of the government and this is how people should judge its success and failure then it is clearly something you need the PM driving through.” In the coming weeks, Pat McFadden, the cabinet minister assisting the prime minister in coordinating policy throughout Whitehall, is scheduled to deliver a speech providing further details on the government’s proposals for civil service reform. Both Pat McFadden and Sir Keir are reportedly convinced of the necessity to incorporate more external expertise into government and to enhance the utilization of data and artificial intelligence. The government’s declared objectives in this area are ambitious. Upon announcing Sir Chris Wormald’s appointment this week as the new cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, Sir Keir instructed him with “nothing less than the complete re-wiring of the British state.” A significant number of individuals within Whitehall expressed doubts regarding whether Sir Chris Wormald, the longest-serving head of a government department—having led the health department for eight years and education for four years prior—is the appropriate individual to overhaul Whitehall. Sir Chris’s proponents contend that, within the existing framework, he is among those most receptive to reform. Cummings reacted to the appointment with overt disdain, sarcastically characterizing it as a “truly beautiful, artistic” decision that ought to function as a “wake up call” indicating that “the Westminster system is totally determined to resist any change.” Consequently, at a minimum, the success of this government is contingent upon Dominic Cummings proving to be mistaken on this matter.