The problem with the post-McSweeney reset is that is likely too late, not too late in the sense that he is already doomed, but too late in that 2 years have been wasted.
my big take on UK politics is that governments elected with a big majority should not worry about re-election, you have this incredible gift in UK Politics of basically no veto points to stop a parliamentary majority and 5 year terms, you can change a country in 5 years.
LBJ ended segregation, passed the Voting Rights Act, passed The Great Society including Medicare and Medicaid and still had time for disastrous war in SE Asia all in 5 years
Attlee nationalized industry, created the NHS, built the welfare state and created NATO all in 5 years and was exhausted at the end the government barely put up a fight when the Palace bullied them into an early election despite them having a slim majority in parliament (supposedly so the King could take a Commonwealth Tour, but I digress)
Paul Keating passed competition policy (Boring sounding but fundamental to the Australian economy), created our Superannuation national retirement savings system, created APAC, passed the Native Title Act and completed the Hawke/Keating economic reforms that continue to form the basis of Australian prosperity 30 years later, all in 4 1/2 years
Hell even Thatcher passed most of what we think of as Thatcherism between 83 and 88 (defeated the miners and changed UK Industrial Relations forever, privatized the utilities, Big Bang and killed manufacturing and unleashed financialisation all in those 5 years.
But Starmer came into office talking about a decade of national renewal, his plan seemingly being to not annoy anyone for 5 years, win re-election and then do the big stuff with a smaller majority in 5 years time, all to prove that McSweeney is an electoral master, so the opportunity to change the country has been lost, its infuriating, when what they should have done is come in and decide they had 5 years to change the country, get on with doing it and who knows the nation might have rewarded them with re-election anyway in 2029
I like this lens - if you look through it from the other side you can also argue that whether the plan was five years or ten, the plan was to *change Whitehall* and Whitehall were never going to like that.
So when Whitehall didn't like where Sue Gray was going, Starmer could and should have said "right, but this change needs to happen and I did you the courtesy of appointing someone from the top of Whitehall so we can at least try to do things in context." Instead he panicked and appointed someone who Whitehall were not going to like any better and brought no context either. What was the point?
In Australia PM Albanese also had a significant victory at the last election . Despite the fact that the Opposition LNP is crumbling away in clear sight , he has refused to take the courageous actions that his win gave him. His timid weakness in both domestic and foreign policy is humiliating and socially divisive, as the “Labor Party “ moves further and further to the Right.
The whole point of my post was the UK Govts have unique ability to deliver real change once they have a majority because none of the veto points that stymie other nations governments don’t exist
Albo had a one seat majority in the house in his first term and in both terms does not have a majority in the senate, he also operates in a system where state governments control significant parts of the system especially in health and education. Before even getting to 3 years terms
Govern those constraints Albo has achieved a lot, are there things I wish he’d done more on ? Of course, but from reducing PBS costs to increasing healthcare funding and increasing access to bulk billing, reducing HECS bills and strengthening workers rights he’s made lots of strong social democratic improvements to Australia, despite the fact he’s facing intransigence from the no-alition of the Greens, Liberals, Nats and Pocock in the senate it’s even more impressive, especially on housing where the Greens talk a good game but oppose anything that might impact their middle class voters
The whole point of my post is that Starmer faces none of these challenges, whatever he wants to do he can just pass a law and do it, no other social democratic government in the west has that privilege
You have described my experience of being in the civil service. It was a frustrating place to be, as I had clients who felt strongly let down as they said as soon as someone developed the expertise needed, they would move on. I have seen basically amateurs negotiate with the European Commission and be thoroughly outmanoeuvred and I have seen the way it functions in that some smart but inexperienced fool makes decisions as a manager over the head of the most experienced person in the room.
Mandami expects better from our public services and so should we.
But what’s the philosophy/ideology behind this constant moving around? It’s a question I haven’t been able to answer. I thought perhaps that the new public management was responsible- the idea that you run a government department as a business-but you wouldn’t devalue experience in this way in a business so what’s going on? Is it because people get bored in one area only and are they trying to manage interest against poor pay and conditions?
Really good comment. On that last point, people have asked this Q for a long time. it is fundamentally a cultural trait, which has proved extremely resistant to efforts to reform it. It;s also unquestionably got a public school taint to it.
The unsatisfying answer might be it's a general beaurocracy problem.
It's much easier to administrate, to say that each job has an associated grade and salary. It is quite harder to define when someone has meaningfully improved at their existing role enough that it should be regraded as a grade change or salary improvement justified, so it almost never is. It's also easier for the department finance & HR teams and Treasury to know what salaries will cost in a given year if you have a fixed number of jobs each of defined salary.
So if you want pay progression you have to get the next job, and the next grade with it, and there probably isn't going to be one in your current area at the right time, so you look elsewhere. Many large private sector organisations have similar incentive structures and outcomes for the same reason.
I think your description of the Civil Service could be summarised, as: "The Peter Principle".
Is Starmer going to fuck it up again? Well, he seems to be drawn to wrong decisions, like a moth to a flame. So, probably! He'd be better off just tossing a coin. At least he'd have a 50:50 chance of getting it right.
The “Peter Principle” also came into my mind while reading this. It could also be a case of if “your face fits and you won’t be any trouble”.
My late husband was an exceptional nurse (mental health) and manager, but he was passed over for promotion on so many occasions because he wasn’t afraid to speak his mind, cause a stink if it was necessary and he had the best bullshitometer ever. He was also a union rep. Existing management didn’t like that at all. I can see why our current PM would prefer someone who won’t challenge him and will do as they are told.
Well said 👍🏻 In a different area of work you could have been referring to my late dad , whose integrity and willingness to speak up cost him well deserved promotions .
It is so sad that these important qualities are no longer seen as virtues but as a hindrance. I am so sorry for your Dad, but like my husband, he didn’t surrender his principles in exchange for a bigger payslip. They left this world with their integrity intact.
I have a theory about that, which will be the subject of my next post. The idea is currently being sifted through my subconscious and I need to do some research, but I’m aiming to get it out next week.
"In her first stint in the Ministry of Justice, she was in charge of Chris Grayling’s probation privatisation agenda." OH DEAR it was worse than I thought! Thanks for the informative if depressing article!
Didn't Gus O'Donnell as Cabinet Secretary play a major role in banging heads together to conclude the 2010 Coalition Agreement? - a scenario that could well be replayed after the next general election - a big ask in terms of the experience, skill set, and personality that should be sought in Wormald's replacement.
To slightly defend Romeo's pinball career, aren't the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Ministry of Justice all the same (heavily rebranded) thing?
Great article. Does who her husband is, MD of one of the biggest consultancy firms in the world factor in at all? I remember how the government kicked up a fuss on arrival about there being too many consultants (more know-nothing sausage) and then, quietly, maintained that structure by hiring loads of consultants. Can imagine Romeo would be very pro hiring even more for some reason.
It actually was interesting, informative and - on the podcast about 15 mins in - the best laugh I have had this week when you were interrupted, then realised that you needed your partner to get some shopping and then the doorbell rang.... Classic 😂🙏
I guffawed at this point. My first time listening to the audio version. I’m never going back! Great piece Ian, thank you. Sounded fine to me at low volume on speaker btw.
To me the clicks don’t sound like a mic or cable issue. Try making sure your laptop is plugged in and the mic/audio interface is plugged directly into the computer and not a hub or adapter
Sounds good. That said I’ve had a very rare trip out into the world and drunk 4 pints of Timothy Taylor boltmaker and a couple of 🐵 47s so I’m not the best judge at this point. Not sure what poppy sounds like.
The problem with the post-McSweeney reset is that is likely too late, not too late in the sense that he is already doomed, but too late in that 2 years have been wasted.
my big take on UK politics is that governments elected with a big majority should not worry about re-election, you have this incredible gift in UK Politics of basically no veto points to stop a parliamentary majority and 5 year terms, you can change a country in 5 years.
LBJ ended segregation, passed the Voting Rights Act, passed The Great Society including Medicare and Medicaid and still had time for disastrous war in SE Asia all in 5 years
Attlee nationalized industry, created the NHS, built the welfare state and created NATO all in 5 years and was exhausted at the end the government barely put up a fight when the Palace bullied them into an early election despite them having a slim majority in parliament (supposedly so the King could take a Commonwealth Tour, but I digress)
Paul Keating passed competition policy (Boring sounding but fundamental to the Australian economy), created our Superannuation national retirement savings system, created APAC, passed the Native Title Act and completed the Hawke/Keating economic reforms that continue to form the basis of Australian prosperity 30 years later, all in 4 1/2 years
Hell even Thatcher passed most of what we think of as Thatcherism between 83 and 88 (defeated the miners and changed UK Industrial Relations forever, privatized the utilities, Big Bang and killed manufacturing and unleashed financialisation all in those 5 years.
But Starmer came into office talking about a decade of national renewal, his plan seemingly being to not annoy anyone for 5 years, win re-election and then do the big stuff with a smaller majority in 5 years time, all to prove that McSweeney is an electoral master, so the opportunity to change the country has been lost, its infuriating, when what they should have done is come in and decide they had 5 years to change the country, get on with doing it and who knows the nation might have rewarded them with re-election anyway in 2029
I like this lens - if you look through it from the other side you can also argue that whether the plan was five years or ten, the plan was to *change Whitehall* and Whitehall were never going to like that.
So when Whitehall didn't like where Sue Gray was going, Starmer could and should have said "right, but this change needs to happen and I did you the courtesy of appointing someone from the top of Whitehall so we can at least try to do things in context." Instead he panicked and appointed someone who Whitehall were not going to like any better and brought no context either. What was the point?
In Australia PM Albanese also had a significant victory at the last election . Despite the fact that the Opposition LNP is crumbling away in clear sight , he has refused to take the courageous actions that his win gave him. His timid weakness in both domestic and foreign policy is humiliating and socially divisive, as the “Labor Party “ moves further and further to the Right.
The whole point of my post was the UK Govts have unique ability to deliver real change once they have a majority because none of the veto points that stymie other nations governments don’t exist
Albo had a one seat majority in the house in his first term and in both terms does not have a majority in the senate, he also operates in a system where state governments control significant parts of the system especially in health and education. Before even getting to 3 years terms
Govern those constraints Albo has achieved a lot, are there things I wish he’d done more on ? Of course, but from reducing PBS costs to increasing healthcare funding and increasing access to bulk billing, reducing HECS bills and strengthening workers rights he’s made lots of strong social democratic improvements to Australia, despite the fact he’s facing intransigence from the no-alition of the Greens, Liberals, Nats and Pocock in the senate it’s even more impressive, especially on housing where the Greens talk a good game but oppose anything that might impact their middle class voters
The whole point of my post is that Starmer faces none of these challenges, whatever he wants to do he can just pass a law and do it, no other social democratic government in the west has that privilege
Very good column thank you. Serious issue, well explained , with humour. Only downside is the actual issue. What a mess.
You have described my experience of being in the civil service. It was a frustrating place to be, as I had clients who felt strongly let down as they said as soon as someone developed the expertise needed, they would move on. I have seen basically amateurs negotiate with the European Commission and be thoroughly outmanoeuvred and I have seen the way it functions in that some smart but inexperienced fool makes decisions as a manager over the head of the most experienced person in the room.
Mandami expects better from our public services and so should we.
But what’s the philosophy/ideology behind this constant moving around? It’s a question I haven’t been able to answer. I thought perhaps that the new public management was responsible- the idea that you run a government department as a business-but you wouldn’t devalue experience in this way in a business so what’s going on? Is it because people get bored in one area only and are they trying to manage interest against poor pay and conditions?
Really good comment. On that last point, people have asked this Q for a long time. it is fundamentally a cultural trait, which has proved extremely resistant to efforts to reform it. It;s also unquestionably got a public school taint to it.
The unsatisfying answer might be it's a general beaurocracy problem.
It's much easier to administrate, to say that each job has an associated grade and salary. It is quite harder to define when someone has meaningfully improved at their existing role enough that it should be regraded as a grade change or salary improvement justified, so it almost never is. It's also easier for the department finance & HR teams and Treasury to know what salaries will cost in a given year if you have a fixed number of jobs each of defined salary.
So if you want pay progression you have to get the next job, and the next grade with it, and there probably isn't going to be one in your current area at the right time, so you look elsewhere. Many large private sector organisations have similar incentive structures and outcomes for the same reason.
Great post Ian.
I think your description of the Civil Service could be summarised, as: "The Peter Principle".
Is Starmer going to fuck it up again? Well, he seems to be drawn to wrong decisions, like a moth to a flame. So, probably! He'd be better off just tossing a coin. At least he'd have a 50:50 chance of getting it right.
The “Peter Principle” also came into my mind while reading this. It could also be a case of if “your face fits and you won’t be any trouble”.
My late husband was an exceptional nurse (mental health) and manager, but he was passed over for promotion on so many occasions because he wasn’t afraid to speak his mind, cause a stink if it was necessary and he had the best bullshitometer ever. He was also a union rep. Existing management didn’t like that at all. I can see why our current PM would prefer someone who won’t challenge him and will do as they are told.
Well said 👍🏻 In a different area of work you could have been referring to my late dad , whose integrity and willingness to speak up cost him well deserved promotions .
It is so sad that these important qualities are no longer seen as virtues but as a hindrance. I am so sorry for your Dad, but like my husband, he didn’t surrender his principles in exchange for a bigger payslip. They left this world with their integrity intact.
Thank you Suzanne 😊 These days , wither any sign of integrity in government or major corporations ?
I have a theory about that, which will be the subject of my next post. The idea is currently being sifted through my subconscious and I need to do some research, but I’m aiming to get it out next week.
Thank you, Elizabeth x
"In her first stint in the Ministry of Justice, she was in charge of Chris Grayling’s probation privatisation agenda." OH DEAR it was worse than I thought! Thanks for the informative if depressing article!
Chris Grayling. A man who it is impossible to understand how he got so far. Incompetent and lack-lustre in every respect.
Didn't Gus O'Donnell as Cabinet Secretary play a major role in banging heads together to conclude the 2010 Coalition Agreement? - a scenario that could well be replayed after the next general election - a big ask in terms of the experience, skill set, and personality that should be sought in Wormald's replacement.
To slightly defend Romeo's pinball career, aren't the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Ministry of Justice all the same (heavily rebranded) thing?
Great article. Does who her husband is, MD of one of the biggest consultancy firms in the world factor in at all? I remember how the government kicked up a fuss on arrival about there being too many consultants (more know-nothing sausage) and then, quietly, maintained that structure by hiring loads of consultants. Can imagine Romeo would be very pro hiring even more for some reason.
This is a major problem within Australian governments .
It actually was interesting, informative and - on the podcast about 15 mins in - the best laugh I have had this week when you were interrupted, then realised that you needed your partner to get some shopping and then the doorbell rang.... Classic 😂🙏
I guffawed at this point. My first time listening to the audio version. I’m never going back! Great piece Ian, thank you. Sounded fine to me at low volume on speaker btw.
OK fab, that's reassuring.
Have you sent Starmer a copy of your book, Ian? Sounds like he needs to read it, fast!
https://www.waterstones.com/book/how-westminster-works-and-why-it-doesnt/ian-dunt/9781399602730
Another brilliant, disturbing and informative column. Thanks Ian.
The Human Target is good, innit? For all the reasons you say but also for the usual Tom King intelligent plot work and the Mad Men style visuals.
Smallwood's art in Human Target is simply to die for.
Great piece as usual. But the mic is still quite clicky
Damnit.
To me the clicks don’t sound like a mic or cable issue. Try making sure your laptop is plugged in and the mic/audio interface is plugged directly into the computer and not a hub or adapter
Excellent article, thanks.
Highlighting a key issue. It doesn’t bode well for this government if it’s not making the right appointments for key positions.
Very worrying when so many were hoping that Starmer had turned the corner.
Sounds good. That said I’ve had a very rare trip out into the world and drunk 4 pints of Timothy Taylor boltmaker and a couple of 🐵 47s so I’m not the best judge at this point. Not sure what poppy sounds like.