Simon Case explains why we need a well-codified process for switching Prime Ministers outside an election period
“Here we go again”. I received this message more than once from former Whitehall colleagues upon Keir Starmer’s resignation announcement last month, which saw the launch of a process which will soon result in our seventh Prime Minister in just over a decade. Whilst we have rattled through Prime Ministers at a considerable rate, Keir Starmer is, of course, the only one since David Cameron chosen initially via a general election and a vote of the whole of the electorate of the United Kingdom.
Although Theresa May and Boris Johnson were returned to Downing Street following general elections they had called, they did so only after first becoming Prime Minister as a result of internal Conservative Party contests. It looks likely that Andy Burnham will be the next occupant of No 10 (or perhaps No 10 North) and that he will also take up office without the whole country having a say, reflecting both the permissive constitutional nature of our Parliamentary democracy and the strife inside our main political parties.
The adverse impact of these frequent changes on the good governance of the United Kingdom, and on the consistency of direction given to the Civil Service, is clear. Business leaders have lost count of the number of industrial strategies launched from Whitehall since 2016; nurses and doctors are bemused by the number of NHS investment and recovery plans. We can forgive foreign leaders for having to ask their staff before meetings to remind them who the current UK Prime Minister is. Through most of our recent transitions from one Prime Minister to the next, the incoming leader has usually been keen to emphasise a break with their predecessor’s policies, rather than focus on those elements of continuity that ran through previous administrations of the same political hue.
Most seriously, though, recent mid-Parliament switches of Prime Minister have often happened quickly and unpredictably by comparison with the changing administrative and political landscape which follows general elections, as in 2024. When the country goes to the polls there are well-established, well-rehearsed and largely codified routines for a change of administration and policies.
The idea of access talks, which allows civil servants to engage with potential administrations, has become normal, as has the management of continuing government business during an election period. The Cabinet Manual, although now woefully out of date in many regards, remains helpfully clear on the processes governing access talks in the run-up to a general election. Paragraph 2.21 states:
At an appropriate time towards the end of any Parliament, as the next general election approaches, the Prime Minister writes to the leaders of the main opposition parties to authorise pre-election contacts with the Civil Service. The meetings take place on a confidential basis, without ministers being present or receiving a report of discussions. The Cabinet Secretary has overall responsibility for co-ordinating this process once a request has been made and authorised by the Prime Minister. These discussions are designed to allow the Opposition’s shadow ministers to ask questions about departmental organisation and to inform civil servants of any organisational changes likely to take place in the event of a change of government. Senior civil servants may ask questions about the implications of opposition parties’ policy statements, although they would not normally comment on or give advice about policies.
Paragraphs 2.27-2.34 spell out the expected approach to conducting the business of government during election periods. The core principles are recorded in Paragraph 2.27:
While the government retains its responsibility to govern and ministers remain in charge of their departments, governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election, immediately afterwards if the result is unclear, and following the loss of a vote of confidence. In all three circumstances essential business must be allowed to continue.
Whilst the management of access talks before a general election is still occasionally fraught and requires sensitivity on the part of both sitting ministers and senior officials, the grooves feel fairly well-worn and largely reliable.
By contrast, the realities of managing mid-term changes of Prime Minister are very different. The pace of change of administration is usually quicker – and it can be less predictable – which has consequences for the processes of preparing for government. It tests what is still an uncodified approach to access talks outside a general election context, as well as the management of government business. The Cabinet Manual is silent on these mid-term transitions.
We do, of course, have a fairly significant body of modern precedent for the Cabinet Secretary of the day to draw on when it comes to running mid-term transition processes. The switches from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown, David Cameron to Theresa May, Theresa May to Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson to Liz Truss and Liz Truss to Rishi Sunak all tell us things about approaches which can work, whether during full contests within parties for new leaders (May to Johnson and Johnson to Truss) or so-called ‘coronations’ (Blair to Brown and Truss to Sunak). The Cameron to May succession started out as a full internal party contest, but when Andrea Leadsom withdrew in the final stage, leaving only May standing, a process which was due to take months collapsed into days.
As far as possible, the mid-term transition processes should mirror the core principles set out in the Cabinet Manual for general elections. Namely:
1) It is for the Prime Minister to authorise any contact with potential successors. Although the Cabinet Secretary and Civil Service run the transition process, it remains crucial that the sitting PM provides the political authority for the Civil Service to spend some of its time not on the business of the government of the day but on potential alternative administrations.
2) The confidentiality of the process of talks needs to be preserved, in order to help foster the necessary trust between officials and a potential Prime Minister and team.
3) The Cabinet Secretary of the day must try to manage the risk that multiple points of contact open up, muddling messages and leading to uncertainty about the authority which sits behind any request from a potential incoming team. When changes of leader happen within a governing party, a significant number of civil servants will often have had contact with one or more of the leading candidates, because many of those candidates will likely have had ministerial experience. This is usually helpful, as it means “the system” already has some sense of how best to work with an individual, but it can also cause confusion if discipline is not observed within the Civil Service.
Two other critical questions require more judgement, namely: who the Civil Service can talk to; and when talks can or should begin. To a large degree in the past, the response to these issues has been determined by the rules of the party in power regarding its own constitution about leadership elections, as well as the political circumstances of the moment. Generally, talks have been offered to candidates that reach the party’s own threshold to stand as a candidate. This approach was taken in 2016 and 2022, and is being used presently following the resignation of Sir Keir. It makes sense for the party process to decide which individuals are eligible for access talks, rather than requiring the Cabinet Secretary to make that judgement. It also helps remove the risk that an outgoing Prime Minister favours any particular candidate or candidates.
The timing of talks has been more variable given the different political realities of transition. The Blair-Brown hand-over was relatively predictable and orderly, making it slightly more straightforward for the Civil Service to manage. Brown had been working on his plans for years and key officials knew much of what he had in mind, even before the formal transition began. In 2016, because of Leadsom’s withdrawal, the talks had barely begun, so the final discussions had to be brief and focused on the bare essentials. In the first transition of 2022, talks began quickly after the official contest got under way and continued throughout the process. The second transition of that year was so quick that talks were highly compressed into the 24 hours before Sunak became Prime Minister. In this year’s contest, the agreed approach has allowed the Cabinet Secretary the maximum reasonably justifiable time to talk to Andy Burnham and any other candidates who can show that they can reach their party’s threshold for nomination.
The management of government business during an election period, or during a mid-term transition, is always difficult. There is an inherent tension in those moments. The Civil Service continues to work for the Government of the day and the government of the day retains its full legal powers; however, we expect restraint on the part of the sitting administration. The Civil Service can at times appear to adopt a harsh policing role over the conduct of in-post ministers. Although this tension is also a feature of general election periods, the fact that (in mid-term transitions) the party is retaining power, even if the leadership is changing, can create a slightly different and less forgiving atmosphere.
As with access talks, the recent practice in mid-term transition periods has been to stick as closely as possible to the principles relating to general elections. Official resources should not be used by candidates to further their leadership campaigns and significant new announcements should be avoided. This latter restraint is especially challenging, particularly in an era when Prime Ministers and their teams become focused on Prime Ministerial legacies after they have announced their intention to step down. We appear to have become very accepting of legacy-focused announcements, speeches and foreign travel, in a way which would appear to be at odds with both the harsh political realities and the spirit of the approach specified in the Cabinet Manual for general elections.
We have long been promised updates of the Cabinet Manual by successive Prime Ministers. Officials have done the necessary work that would enable such commitments to be honoured relatively quickly and easily. When we finally see an updated Manual, we should hope that it includes specific references to rules for mid-term transitions. Given Whitehall’s recent in-depth experience of managing them, it would seem prudent to record the key lessons now, to help inform the approach taken in future.
Lord Simon Case served as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service from September 2020 to December 2024.
