Sir Philip Rutnam, Priti Patel and the downside of the Dom Cummings permanent revolution

What is it about the Home Office? In the New Labour years it was the graveyard of ministerial careers. John Reid, on appointment as Home Secretary, had to take the extreme measure of declaring the place not fit for purpose. Only by saying it was a complete shambles could he buy himself the time to reconstruct this key government department and then get out.

What makes the department so difficult, and dangerous, for those trying to run it? The Home Secretary has policing, immigration and security within their remit, all areas that the public cares about – a lot – when mistakes are made or there is an emergency. What can possibly go wrong? A lot.

Once again, in the early months of Boris Johnson’s post-election administration, the Home Office is at the centre of a storm that threatens to do substantial damage to a government’s reputation.

Sir Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary, the senior official at the Home Office, announced his resignation on Saturday morning in an incendiary statement screened live on television. He accused the Home Secretary Priti Patel of orchestrating a campaign against him. He will sue the government.

An emotional Rutnam said:

“I have this morning resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office. I take this decision with great regret after a career of 33 years. I am making this statement now because I will be issuing a claim against the Home Office for constructive dismissal. In the last 10 days I have been the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign. It has been alleged that I have briefed the media against the home secretary. This, along with many other claims, is completely false. The home secretary categorically denied any involvement in this campaign to the Cabinet Office. I regret I do not believe her. She has not made the efforts I would expect to dissociate herself from the comments. Even despite this campaign, I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister. But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this.”

The suggestion is that the Cabinet Secretary and Johnson were trying to patch something together – a compromise, or a deal – and the Home Secretary would not engage.

Patel denies all the allegations.

Rutnam had more to say:

“I believe that these events give me very strong grounds to claim constructive unfair dismissal, and I will be pursuing that claim in the courts. My experience has been extreme but I consider there is evidence it was part of a wider pattern of behaviour. One of my duties as permanent secretary was to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of our 35,000 people. This created tension with the home secretary, and I have encouraged her to change her behaviours. I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.”

Sceptics, who have worked in, say, newspapers, will say that this sounds like a standard evening in the old days.

“I know that resigning in this way will have serious implications for me personally – the Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome. I am aware that there will continue to be briefing against me now I have made this decision, but I am hopeful that at least it may not now be directed towards my colleagues or the department. This has been a very difficult decision but I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country, which includes hundreds of thousands of civil servants, loyally dedicated to delivering this government’s agenda.”

Rutnam turned on his heels and headed back indoors.

In customary style Patel will fight back against what she sees as an old boy network that doesn’t like robust challenge from ministers on behalf of taxpayers.

In that spirit, the Tories are circling the wagons. Supporters of Priti Patel point out that Rutnam was involved in the Windrush debacle and much more.

I’m not sure that is a sensible line of attack. Just think what Rutnam knows about the operating style and quirk and mistakes of leading Tory ministers including Patel, former Home Secretary Theresa May, and the current Prime Minister.

This will get messy.

Ultimately, what this demonstrates is the high risk level attached to the Dominic Cummings approach to running government. Cummings is the PM’s main aide, and a proponent of spiky, robust people management. He is making the weather in Whitehall. Dominant patterns of behaviour get copied in organisations. The same is true in government.

Cummings is not a Tory, which matters in this instance. His thing is permanent revolution and disregard for established institutions. This can be very effective in insurgent political campaigning. In government it is much less effective because colleagues and many voters, in the end, value competence and reassurance as much as excitement and fireworks. On a crisis such as coronavirus for example they want a lot of reassurance. Eventually they will notice if their country’s government displays signs of being either mad or out of control, or both.

On social media the government’s most loyal supporters are out in force today saying – in essence – that Rutnam is a silly softie and you need tough-talking kick ass antics to get stuff done. I’m not so sure this is the way for a government to get anything useful done, especially in the midst of coronavirus.