The recent attacks on the UK's Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald, have sparked a heated debate, with accusations of political cowardice flying from all sides. This controversy highlights a significant internal struggle within the government, raising questions about leadership, expectations, and the future of the civil service. Let's delve into this complex situation.
Dave Penman, the head of the FDA (the union for senior civil servants), didn't mince words, calling the anonymous criticism of Wormald "hugely damaging." He argues that such actions hurt the government's ability to attract talented individuals to top positions.
But here's where it gets controversial... Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, appointed Wormald to lead the civil service in December, choosing him from a shortlist of four candidates. However, within months, whispers of dissatisfaction began circulating within the Prime Minister's inner circle.
The Guardian reported that No. 10 had "buyer's remorse" about the appointment, with Starmer's aides viewing Wormald as "insipid" and resistant to change. The Times went further, suggesting Wormald's tenure might be cut short, possibly by January. Penman's perspective is that Wormald was chosen for his ability to stay out of the headlines.
"Even if he was failing to deliver what he is supposed to deliver, this isn’t the way to deal with it. It stinks of political cowardice," Penman stated. He questioned what message this sends to potential replacements and future candidates, who might worry about being ousted after a short period.
Other senior civil servants have also weighed in, questioning Starmer's initial expectations. One insider noted that Wormald's approach was to "make things work for your minister." He previously worked with Michael Gove during his time at the Department for Education.
Downing Street has stated that Wormald still has the Prime Minister's support, but the spokesperson admitted that Starmer would like to see things progress "further and faster." Several cabinet ministers reportedly share concerns about Wormald's performance, with some suggesting that Olly Robbins would have been a better choice.
And this is the part most people miss... Former colleagues of Wormald at the Department of Health expressed surprise at his perceived unsuitability for the role, citing low morale and inadequate preparation for the pandemic. One individual mentioned the "mishandling of infected blood" under his watch. Another described him as an "uninspired choice," especially considering the goal of reforming the state.
A government advisor noted that the appointment was the "opposite of what we needed." Starmer should have considered a wider range of candidates, they suggested. The shortlist included Robbins, Antonia Romeo, and Tamara Finkelstein. One Labour MP bluntly stated that it was clear from the start that Wormald wasn't the right person for the job.
Ousting Wormald would raise questions about Starmer's judgment, especially following the departures of other senior figures. As one Labour source put it, the situation "looks bad," but the alternative – continuing with Wormald and sidelining him – might be worse.
What do you think? Do you agree with the criticism of Wormald, or do you believe he's being unfairly targeted? How do you think this situation will impact the future of the civil service and the government's ability to attract top talent? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
