Eric Morecambe and the challenge of good government
Some of the right people, not necessarily in the right roles
A while ago someone told me that they thought the UK government was suffering from what they called ‘Eric Morecambe’ syndrome. In a classic sketch with Andre Previn, Eric Morecambe comments on his performance of Grieg’s piano concerto that he had played the right notes, ‘but not necessarily in the right order’ (if you’re too young to have seen it before, it’s worth a few minutes of your time).
In the same way, this government contains many talented people, but a remarkable proportion of ministers, advisers and civil servants look to outsiders (and many insiders) to be obviously not in the right roles. People who would shine in other jobs instead look clumsy, clunky and incompetent. The right people, perhaps, but not necessarily in the right order.
That this could be a systematic problem was confirmed by the summer reshuffle which moved several of the ministers who were doing their jobs well into jobs they seemed much less keen on.
Since it takes at least a year for ministers to get on top of their job and to forge the key relationships, moving them around pretty much guarantees sub-par government, a kind of structural incompetence. The churn became comically disastrous under the Tories (three education secretaries in one week was just an extreme example), so it’s sad to see a return to high levels of turnover under Labour.
One of its many consequences is that talented people end up being sacked. Although they could shine in other roles, when they fail because they’re ill-suited to their current role, they’re simply thrown out. This happened to Sir Keir Starmer’s former Chief of Staff, Sue Gray, and it could well happen to his current one.
I’ve always thought it odd that the HR function is done so amateurishly in so many governments (with ministerial reshuffles a particularly crazy example in which lots of people are moved into new jobs by decision-makers who are operating under great stress and without time for much reflection). Indeed the fact that poor decisions are being made suggests that the people making them might themselves be proof of the problem: possibly competent people who just aren’t very competent at making decisions about roles and appointments, perhaps because they only see the choices through a political factional lens, with little or no attention to the impact on how well government governs.
We don’t have to go as far as China where the organisation committee of the Communist Party maintains detailed personnel files, manages careers and ensures intensive training for ministers, governors, Mayors and thousands more. Democracy is bound to be messier. But there’s no good reason to have such minimal training and coaching (which I wrote about here) and such oddly random appointments processes.
There are many other things for this government to fix: from strategy and ideas to implementation (or poetry, prose and plumbing as I put it). But getting the right people in the right roles is fairly fundamental. Coalitions and governments with tiny majorities have an excuse for struggling with the business of appointments. But blessed with a vast majority this is one government that could be doing the job of appointments a lot better.
