What Mandelson vetting row reveals about escalating tensions between ministers and civil servants
Keir Starmer’s decision to fire Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins has contributed to “one of the worst crises in relations” between ministers and civil servants in modern times. The words of former cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell, writing after Robbins was sacked for declining to inform Starmer that Peter Mandelson failed vetting for his ambassador role, are a stark warning for the prime minister.
Such a crisis has been building for some time. Historically, British civil servants and ministers had a strong bond based on a mutually beneficial partnership. Yet that partnership is badly frayed, and in its place a “them v us” relationship is emerging.
Under the previous Conservative government, ties between ministers and civil servants atrophied. A major source of tension was Brexit, amid frustration that officials were allegedly conspiring to derail Britain’s departure from the European Union.
More uncompromising figures, notably Boris Johnson’s chief strategist Dominic Cummings, believed that the permanent civil service was “an idea for the history books”. In his view, it was time to cut back the permanent bureaucracy, and bring in outsiders to rewire the state. Cummings threatened that a “hard rain” would fall. Ministerial relations with civil servants sank to a new low.
The expectation within Whitehall was that the election of a new government under Starmer would restore order and civility. After all, Starmer was himself a former permanent secretary at the Crown Prosecution Service, who believed in the ethic of public service. The fractured ties between officials and ministers would be repaired.
It has not, so far, worked out that way. In key respects, relationships appear to have deteriorated further. This has now been exacerbated by the summary dismissal of Robbins over the Mandelson affair.
Read more: Why have relations between civil servants and ministers turned so sour – and can they be repaired?
Why do such tensions between officials and ministers in Whitehall persist? A key factor is that civil servants clearly believe they are less equipped to support ministers than they were 20 years ago. This has come up frequently in my interviews and private conversations with current and former civil servants.
Increasingly, the civil service lacks the experience and tools to advise ministers on policy. This problem began in the 1980s, with the rise of new public management – government reforms in several countries emphasising efficiency through markets and competition. Attention shifted towards operational delivery, away from policy-making. There has been a marked loss of intellectual capacity, while some civil servants bemoan the absence of creative policy thinkers in Whitehall.
Another issue is that the civil service appears less willing to look outwards, exacerbating what political scientists Ivor Crewe and Anthony King describe as “operational and cultural disconnect”. Officials in government departments appear more detached than ever from frontline professionals (the so-called “street-level bureaucrats” who manage public services), as well as from citizens and communities.
Who is responsible?
To blame the civil service for the current malaise is surely mistaken. After all, politicians are elected to lead and provide a coherent sense of direction. Civil servants support ministers’ ambitions by faithfully implementing the government’s agenda.
The Starmer administration came to office without a credible governing strategy. Apart from woolly rhetoric about “missions”, incoming ministers had no clear conception of how to strengthen government effectiveness.
A particular gap related to improving performance in public services, notably education, health, criminal justice and public transport. Most governments arrive in Whitehall with instincts about how to achieve change. Some use the central state alongside targets to mandate improvement. Others adopt bottom-up mechanisms including giving citizens more of a voice in shaping public services, while extending choice and competition in the organisation of provision.
Yet Starmer’s ministers appear to have no consistent approach. For example, NHS policy combines top-down directives with exhortation about creating a “community-led” service. The result is widespread confusion. In turn, slowness to deliver change breeds frustration among ministers, leading almost inevitably to attacks on the capability of civil servants, escalating tensions further.
It was the prime minister himself who declared that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”, setting the tone for the rest of his government. Yet, inexperienced politicians are naive about the time it takes to secure sustainable improvement.
The dismissal of Robbins appears to be a continuation of the recent era in which ministers treated their relationships with officials with casual disregard. When crises erupt or policies appear to fail, civil servants are made culpable.
Yet such blame games are destructive, not least because they make it harder for civil servants to discharge their essential constitutional function of “speaking truth to power”.
In an atmosphere of growing distrust, officials are less likely to highlight problems in proposed policies. Where career promotion relies on doing what ministers are perceived to want, the risk is that propriety and ethics are negated, having a “chilling effect” on the wider civil service.
A dominant characteristic of civil service reform in recent decades is making officials more “responsive” to ministers. For example, permanent secretaries are employed on time-limited contracts intended to create pressure to perform. Moreover, increasing the contestability of policy advice by turning to political advisers, thinktanks, NGOs and the private sector disrupts the monopoly which civil servants previously held in the policy-making process (although that was always something of a myth).
Such a dynamic increases the pressure on civil servants to comply with what ministers demand. Otherwise, in a more competitive policy landscape, they risk marginalisation. Consequently, the civil service is less likely to fulfil its crucial role in acting as a break on overweening executive power and unchecked authority. That is detrimental to the fulfilment of good government.
Patrick Diamond receives funding from the ESRC as part of the governance and institutions project at the Productivity Institute. He is a former government special adviser, a member of the Labour party and the Fabian Society.