The principle of civil service impartiality does not preclude officials having opinions. It requires only the professionalism to set partisanship aside when enacting government policy. That might not always be easy, and trust is not always in ready supply. Hence controversy over Labour’s recruitment of Sue Gray, a former Cabinet Office official, to serve as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.
Ms Gray authored a report last year on illegal lockdown parties in Downing Street. Boris Johnson said that the investigation exonerated him, but his Conservative allies subsequently argued that the whole thing was an orchestrated campaign of subterfuge against the former prime minister, and that Ms Gray’s recruitment by the leader of the opposition proves it.
That was a far-fetched tale in March, when the news of the appointment broke. It is no more credible this week, as the Tories have tried to revive the story with briefings about an ongoing investigation into Ms Gray’s move to Labour. Her readiness to support the opposition inevitably casts a shadow over the preceding period of service to the government. Former colleagues might reasonably feel the move was unseemly in its haste, but it doesn’t prove unprofessional conduct. There is ample precedent for former civil servants taking up party-political posts, and politics would be worse off if they didn’t. Their expertise in how government works is vital.
The froth of Tory outrage is partly synthetic, whipped up to make a stink for Labour on the eve of local elections, but not entirely insincere. It expresses the accumulated mass of frustration at failures in government, for which obstruction by officials is a more palatable explanation than ministerial incompetence – the true cause. This was nowhere clearer than in the recent resignation of Dominic Raab over bullying staff.
An independent inquiry upheld complaints of intimidating behaviour and abuse of power against the former deputy prime minister. His defenders in the Conservative party and the press claimed instead that biased civil servants had plotted against a minister whose only offence was a brusque manner in demanding high standards. If Mr Raab’s managerial method had any merit he might have some record of achievements in office to show for it, but he has none from three cabinet jobs spanning five years.
Setting aside individual character flaws, the problem that Mr Raab encountered is the inherent conflict between an intensely ideological project and a governing apparatus that is limited to implementation of policies that are technically feasible and legal. That is a common tension between ministers and civil servants. What made it systemic and chronic was Brexit, and specifically the model of departure from the EU designed by Mr Johnson, which was based on denial of practical complexities, and lies about cost.
Mr Johnson also appointed a weak cabinet secretary, Simon Case, who then reliably enabled and indulged prime ministerial caprice instead of defending the integrity of the governing apparatus.
Brexit forced the civil service to collude in national self-sabotage. The Conservatives then cast officials as the saboteurs for failing to inflict harmful measures more zealously. That dysfunctional pattern is now embedded in the relationship between ministers and mandarins. The problem is not partisan officials but delusional policies. The solution is not a politicised civil service, as many Conservatives are now demanding, but more professional competence among politicians.
