The obsessive focus of Boris Johnson’s advisers on shaking up Whitehall reinforces the failed belief that all the answers lie in better central government. If they really want the UK to be the most dynamic state in the world and to “level up” the most deprived areas, they need to devolve power away from London.
There is good evidence that decentralised countries have stronger growth and better public services – and even the Treasury recognises that the UK is one of the most centralised states in the world.
Instead of poking at the problem with a few grudging concessions negotiated through city deals, ministers need to give local government the decision-making and tax-raising powers it needs to make a difference. That would be the fastest route to “levelling up” and beginning to tackle endemic problems such as skills shortages, low productivity and poor public transport.
The signals about how Whitehall will be reformed have been mixed. The growing expectation that the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, will be staying for the foreseeable future rather than becoming ambassador to Washington provides experience and continuity at the top.
Plans to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign Office – despite Boris Johnson claiming as foreign secretary that separating them in the 1990s was a “colossal mistake” – look to have been abandoned, avoiding a serious distraction irrelevant to voters and with doubtful benefits. A separate borders and immigration department may still happen.
But the pincer movement on the civil service by Rachel Wolf – who played a key role in drafting the Conservative manifesto – and Dominic Cummings reveals a determination to force through radical change.
Cummings is reminiscent of David Cameron’s adviser Steve Hilton – a shabby chic intellectual impressed with his own brilliance coming in to Downing Street to shake up Whitehall. Hilton similarly preferred to blow up bridges rather than build them, alienating many key players, and struggled to deliver big, sometimes fanciful, ideas.
Cummings makes a virtue of his intention to exhaust his staff. While too much work and too little sleep is the reality for many mandarins and advisers, it is hardly something to aim for. Making decisions about other people’s lives while knackered is a bad idea, and such a macho management style is not the way to attract and develop top talent.
The notion that bringing in a few “VERY clever young people” with skills such as data analysis will fundamentally change Whitehall ignores the realities of how the civil service works, while the idea that clever people with enough data can resolve present difficulties and anticipate future ones is a fantasy.
Of course government needs more of these sorts of skills, but many, if not most, policy failures are rooted in bad politics, not bad administration or advice. Coachloads of data analysts and project managers will not solve the social care or housing crises unless there is the political will to do so.
Cultural change across a workforce of more than 400,000 – such as Sedwill’s aim of better cross-government working – will always be a long, hard slog. There are no shortcuts; the only way is to win hearts and minds.
Wolf rightly highlights the need to rethink incentives, staffing numbers and pay if civil servants are to be encouraged to build up expertise and experience by staying longer in policy areas or on projects. But this will count for little if the rapid turnover of ministers continues.
But the biggest weakness in all this is that it risks putting rockets on the fallacy that Whitehall knows best. The way to create truly great public services lies in decentralising the state, not in employing “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” in Downing Street.
Breaking the grip of the centre and empowering communities to solve their problems – that really would be very clever.
• Richard Vize is a public policy commentator and analyst
