Downing Street gatherings and their repercussions are causing the Prime Minister and others to take a good look in the mirror, and reflect on the changes needed, both personal and institutional, to deliver a properly functioning Executive at that level. The country needs them to succeed. Is this an opportunity to set a standard for others to follow? The swollen well of antipathy in the public arena around compliance with Covid rules may or may not see Boris Johnson forced to resign, some will say as the source of his own undoing. Indeed, trust at country and Parliamentary levels may be so eroded already that a change of PM is inevitable. But for now, he continues to lead the UK.
A DYSFUNCTIONAL SHIP NEEDS REPAIR
However, perhaps the dysfunctionality of Downing Street operations is but an inevitable result of a malaise pervading the civil and public services in the UK: are those services fit for purpose? Do they have the leadership, the competences, the skill sets, and the can-do attitude, with a focus on delivering value for money that should surely be expected of them? Do they learn lessons and change or are they merely obsessed with self-preservation, and the avoidance of blame? Possibly that malaise is far more damaging to the UK’s potential success than any alleged drinking culture or disrespect for the voting public’s sufferings? And perhaps, however desirable, popular, or sensible some government policies may be, however well thought out and attractive a strategy may be, and whatever government is in power, if the people responsible for delivery of them simply are not up to it, those policies and strategies will be pointless: ability to implement is the key to success of any strategy. That requires the right people in the right numbers with the right competences in the right places.
If the Sue Gray report and “evidence” from third parties as reported are correct, then a picture of chaotic mismanagement within the Cabinet Office and Downing Street emerges. Some 400 people now are working in No.10, a building not built for a fraction of that number, let alone being also an appropriate place for a family to live. Reporting lines are blurred; responsibilities are blurred; people talk of management chaos. Maybe the blame ultimately rests with the leader, the PM. But in fact, it seems that the structures for management are a shambles, there is no clear culture of achievement, how do things ever get done properly? Perhaps they don’t. Yet so called senior experienced civil servants and outside advisers, like Dominic Cummings, have had charge over running this ship for years.
That such a shambles as Sue Gray reports has been allowed to arise unchecked at the heart of Government seriously calls into question the attitude, values and the competences of all those who over the years have had charge over managing the place. That is before looking at the layers of workers beneath the top. Does this point to a cancer of negligence which pervades more widely which perhaps may explain the huge wastage that seems so common in public spending, and which goes unremedied. Do heads ever roll as they might, at least eventually, in a private workplace? Reflection on a few but striking instances of lack of a sense of responsibility or care for delivery of good service raises the questions:
DEFENCE PROCUREMENT – the wastage year after year in defence procurement of equipment is legendary. The National Audit Office constantly criticises. Budgets are never adhered to. The latest disaster seems to be the Ajax vehicle, on which multi billions have been spent and the vehicle appears not to be fit for purpose, its defects having been long exposed. What has been done to rectify things? Who in a senior position has been removed from the project? There seems no clear way forward.
PANDEMIC BUSINESS LOANS – Lord Agnew very publicly resigned his role overseeing counter-fraud regarding the pandemic loans programme. He referred to schoolboy errors in administration, and a possible £4.3billion loss from simple fraud. The programme had to be set up quickly and no doubt some normal bureaucratic prudence got lost. But most concerning is that there seems to have been a general inability to establish basic checking processes with care on the part of those in charge. This is not political failure, but administrative. Treasury may be trying to recoup fraudulently incurred losses, but excuses are paper thin perhaps?
PANDEMIC PROCUREMENT – it is clear that, when the pandemic struck, the UK was, due to poor decisions historically, prepared for flu but not Covid. And so, the level of appropriate PPE stocks and the systems to distribute it were wholly inadequate. There was worldwide, not just UK, panic buying of PPE. It seems the only nation strangely well set up was China which of course had a couple of months’ extra warning. It benefitted enormously as the key supplier. The Daily Telegraph of 7 February reported “£8.7billion of taxpayers’ money” being wasted on unused PPE, money written off. Urgency dictated quick decisions, but it is apparent that the UK public services, notably the health services, lack the competence to react and face quick decision making with the right skills. Given an open cheque book, incompetence inevitably would waste huge sums. This again was not a policy failure but a failure of those responsible to execute at the execution level.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS – HS2 is a project that has run out of cost control. The ultimate cost is unknown. Somewhere between £100 and £200 billion. Can anybody say whether the ultimate benefits justify the expense? Unlikely as the ultimate expense is unquantifiable. Does not this runaway budgeting happen time and time again, and do heads roll? It seems simply to be accepted as part of procurement reality on big projects that all budgetary forecasts will be grossly underestimated, and then as the project gets going so much has been invested, and despite the fact the real cost is wholly unacceptable, to stop means billions wasted for zero product: so, the project continues. Is such acceptance acceptable? Should not the spending culture and methods change?
PANDEMIC TEST AND TRACE – the fact that the UK had no real systems for a broad test and trace programme at the start of the pandemic is yet another bad strategic failure of the pre-pandemic past. The benefits of the current system established again so quickly with an open cheque book are yet to be truly assessed. An initial £22 billion allocation over 2 years, then topped up by £15billon, making £37billion is an incredible price to pay. Again, did the health care services have a clue what they were doing? Could South Korea and Taiwan have provided the UK with a ready-made system? A huge criticism of the UK system is its dependence on numbers of consultants on £1000 a day or more. There is a sense that there exists an attitude to taxpayer money at the operational level which is far from the required fiduciary custodian approach.
THE NHS AND OTHER CASH GUZZLERS – there is no room here to debate the ways in which the NHS needs to change. But unless another way is found to stop feeding it with cash on demand, it surely will prevent any government from prioritising other major issues, whether educational or simply poverty relieving for example. But no leading politician, whatever the party, seems to have the gumption to proclaim the need for financial review, but instead they vie to pour money into the bottomless pit. If the future success of the UK lies in education, the finance to ramp it up will be always too small as long as the NHS, and social care, dominate.
IS TRANSFORMATIONAL REFORM POSSIBLE?
Does the current required transformation of Downing Street provide opportunity to hold up the mirror to the rest of Government services?
It is hard to find today redeeming features for Dominic Cummings, as he indulges his obsessive lust for vengeance on Boris and Carrie Johnson. However, many critics even admit that one area of strategy where he was perhaps correct was his perception that the civil service needed an overhaul. He perceived that it was stuck in a chasm of inability to change and move with the times. He sought to introduce new blood, the geeks and otherwise digital age graduates. Whilst in charge, he lacked the leadership and soft skills to influence and get the necessary buy in and seems to have made enemies of his own.
It seems that Boris Johnson, encouraged by Patrick Vallance, recognised that the strategic importance of vaccine procurement, the ultimate solution to Covid enslavement, could not be entrusted to the traditional government procurement officers in the health care services. The private sector under Kate Bingham led the programme, and its success has been and still is rightly praised. While she recognised the cooperation of the civil service, she also assessed it as unfit and incapable to do the job that was done by her team, suffering from group think and lacking the right skills. Senior civil servants have admitted to such shortcomings. But what is changing? Is anybody promoting real change? Or will the mandarins merely play for time so that the old ways can continue under their control?
If there is little chance of improving the civil and public service’s skills and attitudes, it seems likely that all ambitious policy delivery will fail. Whether one likes the levelling-up policies or not, they comprise some reasonable aspirational though imprecise targets, which if achieved could significantly improve the quality and productivity of life in many less well-off parts of England. But they require people with the will, determination and skills to implement them. They cannot be about moving structural deckchairs. Leaders and middle management will need to motivate and enable the people on the ground, even where there may be less funding than they would like. Levelling-up cannot be done from Whitehall but it would be nice if Treasury and the Civil servants did not obstruct. Saving money, and not wasting money will be key skills. The challenge is in relentless implementation.
CAN DOWNING STREET SET THE TONE?
Can the set up in Downing Street be so reorganised and revitalised that it can be a beacon of success for others in public service to follow? Many would say that is impossible with an undisciplined culture so engrained, and especially as long as Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. They may well be right. But would it not be in the interests of the country as a whole if they were wrong? Is the Prime Minister himself capable of adapting his style to allow others to challenge and take things forward? Or will he pull the rug from under honest serious attempts to deliver a Downing Street machine which delivers results and which, even if there will be many who disagree with policy, earns back the respect of all people at home and abroad. Reform of Downing Street is an opportunity for a far wider progressive process of change to be rolled out by leaders who lead and do not cower from the tough issues.
