by The history books will surely record that Rishi Sunak was dealt such an impossible hand – after the lies and chaos under Boris Johnson and the economic disaster under Liz Truss – that no Conservative leader could avoid defeat in this year’s election.
But there is another version of events: that Sunak, and several of his predecessors as prime minister, were held back by a dysfunctional, outdated system at the center of the government created in the 19th century.
10 Downing Street is increasingly a presidential operation that tries to impose its will on weak Whitehall departments and ministers, but struggles with day-to-day firefighting and crisis management. Number 10 is small by international standards, and PM lacks the support they need.
The Cabinet Office, which is supposed to support the PM and the cabinet, is ineffective and underpowered, leaving a vacuum to be filled by the all-powerful Treasury. The result is a lack of coalition on the big issues that need to be tackled across departments, with successive governments failing to deliver on their strategic objectives and manifesto promises.
A good example: the Exchequer set the budget for leveling up, so the policy had to come into it, which is back to front. No wonder Tory’s game-changing policy failed.
The weakness at the heart of the government was exposed in the chaotic initial response to the pandemic, as the Covid inquiry revealed. Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s most powerful aide, had many enemies in Whitehall, but many there agreed with his description of the Cabinet Office as a “bomb site” and a “dumpster fire”.
Other symptoms of the malaise include a bunker mentality in No. 10 and incomprehensible cabinet. Both apply under Sunak, whose cabinet board has 32 ministers – 23 full members and nine are allowed to attend. There is no way to run a company, let alone a government.
As Tory MPs grapple with whether Sunak should lead them into the election, criticism of his operation in Downing Street is mounting – most recently, why it took 24 hours for Frank’s allegedly indefensible remarks Tory donor Hester criticized Diane Abbott as a racist.
There are constant complaints about a lack of vision and direction. Some MPs accuse Sunak of the “flip-flopping” charge he throws at Keir Starmer; they believe in bringing back David Cameron but their flawed scheme in Rwanda is plowing in two different directions.
Sunak rejected the idea of a smaller inner cabinet. But if Starmer wins the election, he plans to rebuild and is studying closely the Institute for Government (IFG) think tank’s plan published this month. His commission’s year-long inquiry interviewed 1,000 politicians, officials and advisers, and none defended the status quo.
He proposed an “executive cabinet committee” of several prime ministers; the first secretary of state would be responsible for delivering the government’s priorities and for the civil service; the Cabinet Office and No. 10 is a Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with a separate Department for the Civil Service. Strategy, budget and performance management would be “commonly owned at the core”, weakening the Treasury’s grip.
Starmer is considering plans for a “gang of four” or five senior ministers to drive through his five “missions”. He is likely to be joined by Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves and Pat McFadden, his election campaign co-ordinator. Labor insiders will not admit it publicly, but they believe that “the quad” under the coalition government (David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander from the Liberal Democrats) worked well.
Reform is never easy. Some of the proposal’s supporters fear that Sir Humphrey could prevent him from retaliating against politicians for attacks on “the blob” by the Tories (although I doubt it). Would the Tories really give up power? Tony Blair – like Harold Wilson in 1964 – tried to clip the wings of the Treasury. Blair wanted an Office of Budget and Delivery, with the Treasury as the finance ministry in charge of macroeconomics. Gordon Brown was not budging, and Blair backed down.
Starmer’s allies argue that his close working relationship with Reeves would change. “They would be more like Cameron and Osborne than Blair and Brown,” one told me.
Brown told the IFG event that an inner cabinet appointment would alienate the ministers delegated to the outer circle. Louise Casey, the troubleshooting Whitehall MP, is not convinced that Starmer’s plan for a mission-driven government would automatically improve people’s lives.
Reform is overdue. But it is now too late for Sunak to do it. But not for Starmer, led by his chief of staff, former Whitehall executive Sue Gray, and likely a new cabinet secretary in Olly Robbins, who was Theresa May’s EU negotiator – meaning the departure of Simon Case, a surprise appointment by Johnson.
If Starmer had introduced such a new system from the start, his government would have been in a much stronger position to tackle its huge challenges – ensuring growth; AI; climate change; a volatile world; an aging population and deteriorating public services. The need for reform cannot be overstated. An effective center could make the difference between the success or failure of the Starmer government.
