How should the UK government function?

It is a topic often restricted to the political pages of the broadsheets. While all publications and news headlines focus on key policies enacted by a government – health, education, defence – the inner workings of Westminster are far more exclusive. At one time, only devoted politicos would have an interest in investigating how departments in Whitehall functioned. The priority for the public would usually be on politicians in the House of Commons.

Such a state of affairs is no longer the case. As well as the government’s policies, their inner operations are under far greater public discussion. Who holds influence and how decisions are made are topics that receive more scrutiny and attention from political journalists. Regularly making the headlines, the policies of government alone aren’t the only topics under examination. 

This attention has changed ever since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister last summer, thanks to one Dominic Cummings. As the former director of Vote Leave and a controversial special adviser at the Department for Education, the power of Cummings has featured in analysis of government ever since. Seen as a revolutionary, his influence over the government’s agenda is discussed in a manner incomparable to previous government advisers. Having written a blog with plenty of ideological and provocative statements, been key in the UK leaving the EU and not afraid to offend, the Prime Minister has been almost overshadowed by his supposedly junior adviser. 

The impact of Cummings on government has raised broader questions over the role and purpose of special advisers. According to  the Institute for Government, special advisers provide ‘advice to ministers that is more political than the impartial permanent civil service’. They are the link between politics and policy. While civil servants can only advise, and ultimately enact, the proposals of government, special advisers can politically focus on what gives the government clout and strength, whether it be with the public or media. While civil servants offer a technical perspectives, special advisers are specifically in place to ensure the government’s message is on brand.

According to the Institute for Government, special advisers provide “advice to ministers that is more political than the impartial permanent civil service”.

It is possible for this to create a conflict. Democracy is all about the actions of elected Secretaries of State, whether it’s the Prime Minister, Chancellor or Home Secretary. They have been elected as MPs of the winning party and so have a right to enact a government’s agenda. On the other hand, special advisers are appointed, perhaps with little experience of government and have accountability to the public. For example, Andrew Sabisky was hired before resigning as a special adviser due to previous comments he had made regarding ethnicity, gender and eugenics. It was only because of the public uproar over his appointment that his position became untenable.

It is vital, then, that special advisers hired are effectively vetted before undertaking their new role. Ministers and the government as a whole must be confident that individuals are competent and aware how government functions. Only by understanding the present workings of government is it possible to enact change. It has to attract the best people to the role. The question of what being ‘best’ means can of course be debated. Whether it’s delivering change, an awareness of the facts or assisting the government, it should involve positive attributes. Exceptionalism in government shouldn’t be a rarity but an aspiration of any government department. Whatever our political leanings, we should all desire the UK government to be successful and effective. 

Ministers and the government as a whole must be confident that individuals are competent and aware how government functions.

Where does accountability lie? Ultimately, it must be with the Secretary of State. Special advisers never have to give statements to Parliament, take the final decision or face the electorate. The reward of being elected by the voters means ministers must face the consequences of government errors. Though her special advisers may have played a role, it was Amber Rudd as the elected Home Secretary that had to resign because of the Windrush Scandal. Again, whatever the advice of his team, it was Gavin Williamson who was ultimately sacked as Defence Secretary for allegedly leaking information from a COBRA meeting. The consequences of such actions lie with those who hold the highest offices. Nobody else can take responsibility.

The responsibility or otherwise of Dominic Cummings then comes into question. He may be shaping the actions of government and the decisions of the Prime Minister. Indeed, he was significant in the repeated push for an early general election, as well as the prorogation of Parliament and explosion of 21 Tory MPs. But the final decision must lie with the Prime Minister. He is the most powerful figure in government, at the foundation of all legislation and decision making. Boris Johnson appointed Dominic Cummings and could just as easily remove him. To focus wholly on a special adviser is to deny the agency and powers of the occupant of 10 Downing Street. 

The final decision must lie with the Prime Minister. He is the most powerful figure in the government, at the foundation of all legislation and decision making .

The government is defined by a programme for change. Structurally, this has been most evident with Brexit, which is the most transformative decision any government has taken in decades. The same is the case domestically. Government transformation affects not just the special advisers that are appointed on a party basis. Civil servants, who are defined by their impartiality, are now witnessing the effects of the changing government. Sir Philip Rutnam, the former senior official at the Home Office, recently resigned with plans to sue the government over his removal. This all stems back to bullying allegations against Priti Patel in three government departments. This has led to a Cabinet Office investigation into her conduct. 

The civil service must be willing and open to the ideas of government and the determination of ministers to implement them. However, bullying is unacceptable. While disagreements are inevitable, and are often no bad thing, ministers should use the power of persuasion to initiate new policies and ideas instead of rudeness, aggression or creating an atmosphere of fear. 

The ideas for transformation should be welcomed by those who favour an evolving government. But, the question always has to be a change to what? New policies still deserve to be scrutinised while civil servants with decades of experience must be allowed to state whether these policies are feasible or even legal. It is perfectly possible for a secretary of state to be decisive and authoritative without being a bully.

New policies still deserve to be scrutinised while civil servants with decades of experience must be allowed to state whether these policies are feasible or even legal.

Everyone has something to learn from the escapade involving the civil service, special advisers and elected ministers. Civil servants must remember that, while they can advise and offer pragmatic solutions, the final authority must lie with government. A war need not be created between the civil service and ministers but instead a collegiate evolution of their role in the 21st century. As the late Lady Thatcher once said ‘advisers advise and ministers decide.’ That clever mantra is more relevant than ever with the bubbling conflict enveloping this government.