The civil service now faces a political situation hardly anyone would have predicted even six months ago. It is not just that there is a Conservative majority government, but that the opposition has fragmented in a wholly unexpected way. That will have a profound impact on the context in which the civil service operates.
For quite some time we are likely to be living in a largely one party state without many of the usual checks and balances – or, rather, in two contrasting one party states, one north of the border and the other south. That does not mean that either the Conservatives in London or the SNP in Edinburgh can do everything they want. Indeed, David Cameron faces several tricky political challenges over the next year, notably over the proposed referendum on EU membership.
Civil servants serve the government of the day, until that government changes. But it is never as simple as that, as the last few years have shown.
More like this
Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle: Tom Watson named as Labour's civil service spokesman
FDA's Naomi Cooke: As more spending cuts loom, government needs to be honest about what it will no longer do
Why the Spending Review should herald a new approach to our public finances
Facing the Spending Review? Five things to think about…
The coalition operated very differently from a one party government, with a formal and informal machinery for inter-party consultation, via a more extensive use of Cabinet committees reaching up to the quad at the top. Senior civil servants ensured that decisions were approved by both parties, so policies were subject to close scrutiny.
In the spring, the widespread assumption was that there would be another hung parliament, but a minority government rather than a coalition. That would, in turn, have produced increased uncertainty, with policies dependent on the ability to build up a Commons majority.
Instead, Mr Cameron won a narrow overall majority in his own right, and of 99 over Labour. The main initial impact among reappointed and new Conservative ministers was a sense of liberation from the constraints of coalition. Ministers did not have to check with the Lib Dems, compromise or hold back on favoured projects. Policies, especially those approved by George Osborne and the Treasury, can be pushed through without much collective discussion. That was underlined by Mr Cameron’s stress on the Conservative manifesto as the central, overriding guide to what the government would do.
Governing is, however, about much more than manifestos which, even for a returning government, are often collections of incoherent proposals put together in a hurry, rather than comprehensive plans. In particular, politicians invariably stress novelty and change rather than the existing business of government, which is not only more central to most voters’ lives but is also more important in terms of overall public spending. The Conservative manifesto had lots of aspirations but is not much help when it comes to the government’s main domestic challenge of the autumn, the Spending Review. Moreover, when a new secretary of state is appointed, he or she may have very different priorities from the previous one who shaped the manifesto pledges.
A further twist has come from the fragmentation of the opposition. The Liberal Democrats are down to single figures in the Commons, like 50 years ago. The party still retains a significant presence in the Lords, capable with Labour of defeating the Conservatives on many occasions. But despite the fighting talk of some Lib Dem peers, they will have to be careful given their weakness in the Commons.
The unexpected factor is Labour. The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader has radically changed British politics, with the likely advocacy of policies well outside the previous range of debate. It is hard to see much dialogue between the Treasury and John McDonnell. There is now certain to be a long period of introspection and infighting with widespread doubts about when, and how, Labour can become be a competitive challenger for office again.
The risk for the Conservatives is of hubris, of assuming that the next general election in 2020 is already won, and of behaving as if they can do what they wish. There would certainly be problems for the civil service in such an attitude. Ministers, and their advisers, could feel they can brush aside the cautionary advice of the civil service. Long-established conventions on how decisions are taken and appointments are made could be stretched.
Yet the Conservative Party has fractures itself, and there have already been signs so far in this parliament of a willingness of a sizeable number of backbench MPs to rebel in alliance with Labour and the 56-strong SNP group. This has been sufficient to force the government to re-think its proposals on English votes for English laws and has affected passage of the bill on the EU referendum. These examples of Tory MPs allying with the opposition parties may be infrequent but, paradoxically, they may increase if Conservative critics of Mr Cameron believe there is no downside – that their occasional rebellions will not affect the government’s chances of survival or of winning the 2020 election.
British politics faces great uncertainties, not just because of Mr Corbyn’s election. It is also faced with a referendum on EU membership, whose outcome is unpredictable and could, in turn, trigger a further referendum on Scottish independence. Much of the familiar landscape in which civil servants have operated is now in question.