Downing Street has only itself to blame for lack of grip on Whitehall, say experts

5 hours ago7 min read

The recent critique from former Downing Street adviser Paul Ovenden, lamenting the ‘sheer weirdness’ of Whitehall’s operations and the distracting influence of a ‘political perma-class’, has ignited a familiar and profound debate about the nature of executive power in British governance. While Ovenden’s observations resonate with a long-standing narrative of a civil service adrift from public priorities, the counter-argument from seasoned Whitehall experts—that Number Ten’s perceived lack of grip is ultimately a failure of political will, not bureaucratic sabotage—cuts to the very heart of statecraft.This is not merely a procedural squabble; it is a test of the Starmer administration’s foundational philosophy, echoing historical tensions between prime ministers and their permanent administrations. One can draw a parallel to the early days of Margaret Thatcher’s government, which faced similar accusations of Whitehall inertia from entrenched interests, yet ultimately asserted control through a clear, ideologically driven agenda and the strategic placement of committed political allies.The current situation suggests a government still finding its feet, potentially mistaking activity for achievement, and allowing the daily torrent of lobbying, legacy issues, and media management—the ‘perma-class’ in action—to define its rhythm rather than its own strategic priorities. True power in Westminster is not bestowed by title but seized through decisive action and the relentless imposition of a political project onto the machinery of state.Critics rightly point out that the levers are all there: the power to reshuffle the civil service, to redefine cabinet committee mandates, to sunset legacy programs, and to publicly set—and hold departments accountable to—a brutally simple set of key performance indicators tied to voter concerns. The reluctance to wield these tools with more vigour may stem from a desire for consensus or a fear of the destabilising headlines that radical Whitehall reform inevitably generates.However, as historical precedent from Churchill’s wartime cabinet to Blair’s delivery unit shows, lasting influence requires a willingness to disrupt and occasionally antagonise the permanent establishment. The consequence of continued hesitation is a government that appears reactive, allowing its agenda to be diluted by the endless consultation and risk-aversion that characterises large bureaucracies.The broader context here is a public increasingly sceptical of governmental efficacy, watching for tangible results on the NHS, economic stability, and border security. If the Starmer administration cannot swiftly demonstrate that it commands the ship of state, rather than being merely its most prominent passenger, it risks seeing its political capital erode, emboldening both internal party factions and external opposition. The coming months will reveal whether this episode becomes a footnote or the catalyst for a more assertive, reformist phase of governance, where Number Ten transitions from criticising the system’s weirdness to decisively reprogramming its core logic.

#Downing Street

#Whitehall

#Keir Starmer

#government efficiency

#political perma-class

#lead focus news