The history books will no doubt record that after the lies and chaos under Boris Johnson and the economic disaster under Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak faced such an impossible hand in this year’s election that no Conservative leader could avoid defeat.
But there is another version of events: Sunak and many of the prime ministers before him were held back by a dysfunctional, outdated system at the center of government created in the 19th century.
10 Downing Street has increasingly become a presidential operation, seeking to impose its will on weak departments and ministers in Whitehall, but being drawn into day-to-day firefighting and crisis management. Number 10 is small by international standards and a Prime Minister does not have the support he needs.
The Cabinet Office, which is supposed to support the Prime Minister and cabinet, is ineffective and powerless, leaving a vacuum filled by a very powerful Treasury. The result is that there is no common government across departments on the big issues that need to be addressed, and successive governments have failed to deliver on their strategic objectives and manifesto promises.
A good example: Treasury set the budget for levelling, so policy had to match that, from start to finish. No wonder a game-changing Tory policy has failed.
The weakness at the heart of the government was revealed by the chaotic initial response to the pandemic, as the Covid inquiry has revealed. Johnson’s most powerful lieutenant, Dominic Cummings, had many enemies in Whitehall, but many there agreed with his description of the Cabinet Office as a “bombsite” and a “duster fire”.
Other signs of malaise are No 10’s bunker mentality and unwieldy cabinet. Both appealed to the Sunak administration, which has 32 ministers at the cabinet table (23 full members and nine allowed to attend). It is impossible to manage even a company, let alone a government.
As Tory MPs agonize over whether Sunak should lead them to an election, criticism of his Downing Street operation is mounting; the recent question of why it took 24 hours for Conservative Party donor Frank Hester’s indefensible claims about Diane Abbott to be condemned to be condemned.
There are constant complaints about the lack of vision and direction. Some Tory MPs accuse Sunak of “flip-flopping” accusations against Keir Starmer; They believe he will bring back David Cameron, but his continuation of his flawed Rwanda plan points in two different directions.
Sunak opposed the idea of a smaller inner cabinet. But Starmer is rightly planning a reshuffle if he wins the election, and is taking a close look at a plan published this month by the Institute for Government (IFG) think tank. The commission’s year-long investigation interviewed 1,000 politicians, officials and advisors, and none defended the status quo.
An “executive cabinet committee” consisting of several key ministers was proposed; a first secretary of state will be responsible for implementing government priorities and public services; The Cabinet Office and No 10 were to become the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, along with a separate Civil Service Department. Strategy, budget and performance management will be “collectively owned at the center” and the Treasury’s control will be weakened.
Starmer is considering plans to create a “gang of four” or five senior ministers who will carry out his five “mandates”. He will likely be joined by Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves and campaign coordinator Pat McFadden. Labor insiders do not openly admit this, but they believe the “four” under the coalition (David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats) are working well.
Reform is never easy. Some supporters of the proposal fear that Sir Humphrey will be blocked from taking revenge on politicians for Tory attacks on the “blob” (though I doubt this). Will the Treasury really give up power? Tony Blair – like Harold Wilson in 1964 – tried to clip the Treasury’s wings. Blair wanted a Budget and Distribution Office that would enable the Treasury to become a finance ministry responsible for the macroeconomy. Gordon Brown didn’t even blink and Blair backed down.
Starmer’s allies insist his close working relationship with Reeves will lead to change. “They looked more like Cameron and Osborne than Blair and Brown,” one of them told me.
Brown told an IFG event that appointing an inner cabinet would alienate ministers who fell to the outer circle. Whitehall troubleshooter Louise Casey is not convinced Starmer’s mission-led government plan will automatically improve people’s lives.
It is a belated state of reform. But it is too late for Sunak to do this. But that was not the case for Starmer, under the guidance of his private secretary, former Whitehall enforcer Sue Gray, and new cabinet secretary Olly Robbins, possibly Theresa May’s EU negotiator; this meant the departure of Simon Case, a surprise appointment by Johnson.
If Starmer introduces such a new system from the start, his government will be in a much stronger position to meet these major challenges (securing growth); AI; climate change; a changing world; aging population and collapsing public services. The need for reform cannot be overstated. An effective center could make the difference between the success or failure of Starmer’s government.