Downing Street Accountability Questioned as Whitehall ‘Stakeholder State’ Blamed for Policy Delays
The current UK government is facing increasing scrutiny over its ability to enact policy, with experts suggesting Downing Street itself bears significant responsibility for the perceived lack of progress. The debate was ignited by comments from a former No. 10 advisor, Paul Ovenden, who argued that a powerful network of lobbyists and entrenched interests – a “political perma-class” – is diverting the administration’s focus from the priorities of voters.
Ovenden’s critique centers on what he calls the “supremacy of the stakeholder state,” a complex web of campaign groups, regulators, and organizations that he claims obstruct swift action. He highlighted the considerable effort dedicated to securing the release of British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, noting that colleagues had privately dismissed the campaign as a drain on resources, a “totem of the ceaseless sapping of time and energy by people obsessed with fringe issues.” Abd el-Fattah’s previous posts on X regarding Zionists have further complicated the narrative surrounding the case.
According to Ovenden, this “stakeholder state” is perpetuated by a “political perma-class” operating across all parties and government departments, prioritizing the preservation of their own influence over effective governance. He advocates for a “government with a stiffened spine and renewed purpose” capable of dismantling this system and regaining momentum.
The Prime Minister himself seemingly echoed these frustrations last month, stating, “Every time I go to pull a lever there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, [and] arm’s-length bodies that mean that the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be.”
However, numerous government experts contend that ministers ultimately possess the authority to enact change. Alex Thomas, program director at the Institute for Government, acknowledged the difficulties of implementation but questioned the “stakeholder” framing. “Government should be talking to people,” he said, adding that the core issues lie in a “weak centre in a highly centralised state, a lack of expertise because of political and civil service churn, and poor performance management.” He emphasized the need for “sustained focus and political agency.”
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, offered a similar assessment, stating that the current system exists because ministers allowed it to. “If you think that’s got to change, it’s only there because ministers put it there in the first place. The civil service didn’t put it there. And it can only change if there’s strong political will to change it.”
The responsibility for the current situation also falls squarely on the shoulders of ministers, according to John McTernan, a former Labour advisor to Tony Blair. He pointed to specific policy decisions – including cuts to winter fuel payments, attempts to reduce disability benefits, and the delayed removal of the two-child benefit cap – as examples of choices made by No. 10 and the Treasury. “This is a government that is always getting its own way but is always looking for someone else to blame for the consequences of its own actions,” he asserted.
While acknowledging the challenges of delivering change in a “grindingly difficult” environment, Tom Baldwin, biographer of Keir Starmer, cautioned against focusing on Whitehall reform as a distraction. He believes the Prime Minister’s priority should remain on issues directly impacting the public, such as living standards, public services, immigration, and international crises. “Banging on about Whitehall quangos or red tape would be yet another distraction or even risk creating the impression that you’re just making excuses.”
The government declined to comment on Ovenden’s remarks. His departure in September, following the revelation of inappropriate messages sent about Labour MP Diane Abbott eight years prior, was seen as a setback for the Prime Minister. Ovenden further cited concerns over issues like reparations for former colonies and debates surrounding smoking bans in pub gardens as examples of the government’s misplaced priorities.
“At a time when the public is getting more and more frustrated, more and more fed up with inaction, more and more fed up with distraction, in my opinion, we simply can’t afford to be spending their time on what I consider distractions,” Ovenden concluded. The debate underscores a growing tension between the desire for decisive action and the realities of navigating a complex and often resistant bureaucratic landscape.
