Gaining Access and the UK’s Brutal Transfer of Power

If there’s one thing you can say about our political system, it’s that we love a swift transfer of power. Most of the time – unless the vote is really close - losers are immediately ejected from office (barely holding on to their dignity as they try to avoid tripping over the removal crates on the way out the door), and the winners take over a matter of hours after the votes have been counted. No such niceties for politicians like having some time to catch up on sleep!

As we approach the coming elections, the issue of what happens if there is a change in government will be of much greater interest. Polls currently suggest we will see a new Government, and all that entails in terms of new personnel and changes in policy.

Just last week, Keir Starmer has formally requested that Labour begins access talks – a structured engagement between opposition parties and officials in Whitehall. In part, these are about building relationships, which might quickly become professional and very real within hours after polling day. But, perhaps more importantly, it’s a way for the civil service to understand any potential new government’s priorities and what the first couple of weeks might entail. Then in response, Whitehall can be as prepared as possible to facilitate delivery of a new Government’s agenda, enabling them to hit the ground running.

Back in 2015, I played a minor role as the General Election approached in Labour’s access talks with Whitehall. As a special adviser to the Shadow Justice and Constitutional Affairs team, I joined meetings with the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office (the brief was split across two departments). These meetings took place regularly over a few months, and we were joined by other senior officials leading key directorates (Prisons, Courts etc) in the departments.

A lot has happened since then, so forgive my fuzzy memories. But we discussed what Labour’s priorities in the justice and constitutional affairs area would be, and what were to be the focus in the first few weeks. The party coordinated this activity across all shadow cabinet briefs, with a crack team operating out of the Labour Party HQ in Brewers Green. At the heart were (Lord) Charlie Falconer, Alan Buckle, my good friend Wes Ball (who recently had an opportunity to re-tell the tales at the Institute for Government’s event on access talks) and other party colleagues. Holed up in their office, my abiding memory is the crate of room temperature diet cokes stacked in the corner, fuelling Charlie through the long days.

Of course, the electorate decided otherwise, and our work proved in vain. Against the predictions of most pollsters, the Conservatives were elected with a slim working majority, and somewhat I think even to his surprise, Michael Gove became Lord Chancellor. Over the coming months, I did chuckle on a few occasions when I saw some of Labour’s policies being adopted and pursued by Gove. Of course, it’s winners prerogative to steal the losing side’s ideas, but I did wonder whether in his startled state at taking over the brief, he might have been handed the work done by officials on our access talks, rebadged as ‘policy ideas’ for the new Secretary of State. ?They do say imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Just a year later, I had a second experience of transitions of power, but this time at City Hall, having worked on Sadiq Khan’s mayoral campaign. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is obviously a very different beast to Whitehall, but the transfer between winners and losers is still pretty much immediate as in General Elections. What made the 2016 campaign a bit unique was that there was definitely going to be a new Mayor – the incumbent (Boris Johnson) was not seeking re-election.

In the months before polling day, channels were opened with senior officials at GLA, with a series of meetings taking place around key personnel and priorities. Similar conversations took place with the upper echelons of Transport for London (TfL). While understandably nearly all the attention during the campaign was focused on actually winning the damn thing, a slither of resource had to plan for the eventuality that Sadiq might win.

This was not in any way an act of complacency, more the responsible thing to do – just as I am sure our opponents also planned accordingly. ?But the GLA is set up differently – a new Mayor has in their gift a slug of political appointments which are supplanted to the top of the administration – a rather different model to the Whitehall civil service – so in some ways the personnel side is more important at City Hall.

For those who recall the 2016 Mayoral Election campaign, it was pretty bruising and exhausting. Polling day was Thursday 5th May, and votes were counted the following day. As has become traditional in London Mayoral contests, the counting took way longer than expected, with the formal result not declared until the early hours of Saturday 7th May. In fact, by the time we’d swung by the celebration party, I got to my bed about 3.30am. But just a matter of hours later, I was back at City Hall as Sadiq took over as Mayor.

Needless to say we were all very fatigued, running on caffeine and adrenalin. Officials were really supportive, but decisions needed to be taken. Some – and I don’t blame them for this? - chanced their arm at trying to get important decisions agreed in those first few hours. I took the view that - if at all possible - these needed to wait – at least until Monday when the dust had settled somewhat, and we’d all had some shut eye.

However, my memory was that, while there was a guide on the GLA and its responsibilities, we were essentially left to our best judgement, all at a time when we were sleep deprived. Nor was there much of a political handover from the previous regime. The only legacy I recall was a note that outgoing Deputy Mayor for the Environment Matthew Pencharz left – for which I was grateful. ?

I think you can make a strong case for why transitions of power in Whitehall needs to be pretty much immediate and exceptionally well managed. Matters of national security can’t be left with a vacuum at the heart of government. But the GLA isn’t on the same plane – the Mayor of London doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal. Who has their finger on the trigger isn’t an issue. I don’t see why there can’t be a period of cooling off after the result is declared during which the outgoing Mayor continues. If major issues of policy arise, then the new Mayor can be consulted. But a week or ten days to allow everyone to feel human again and perhaps for officials to plan effectively for a new administration would benefit everyone. However, one thing is certain - we don’t need the weeks and weeks like there is between a US presidential election and the winner being sworn in.

All of this will feel very real this year what with a General Election at which it would look likely there’s going to be a change of party running the country. At City Hall, this looks less likely – Sadiq is the bookies favourite and the polls are looking favourable. But even then I’m sure officials will be prudently planning on all eventualities, as is their job.