Starmer's Appointment Failures: A Pattern of Poor Judgment
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's decision to overrule civil servants and pay £260,000 to remove Sir Chris Wormald as Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service, just 14 months after appointing him, represents a significant admission of failure. This move fits into a troubling pattern of bad personnel choices that have plagued Starmer's administration, raising fundamental questions about his leadership and judgment.
A Growing List of Failed Appointments
The forced departure of Sir Chris Wormald adds another name to Starmer's growing list of top-tier appointments that have ended prematurely. This includes Sue Gray, who served as his chief of staff for merely three months; Peter Mandelson, who lasted only seven months as ambassador to Washington; and Matthew Doyle, a Labour peer for just four weeks. Each case underscores a recurring problem in Starmer's approach to selecting key personnel.
According to sources quoted by Tim Shipman of The Spectator, Starmer appears "completely incurious" about policy and politics, viewing his role as simply sitting in a room, being presented with options, and saying "Yes" or "No." This passive approach excludes the crucial leadership function of being persuader-in-chief, which is essential for effective governance.
The Wormald Debacle: A Costly Mistake
Starmer's appointment of Chris Wormald as Cabinet Secretary little more than a year ago was already considered a surprise choice, with Tamara Finkelstein, the top civil servant at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs, widely expected to secure the position. Historian Anthony Seldon suggests that Peter Mandelson may have advised Starmer to switch candidates at the last moment.
Despite Wormald's apparent competence, he quickly became the target of negative briefings from political sources close to Starmer. The breach between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Secretary grew so severe that Starmer decided to replace him, even as speculation about his own political future reached its peak and he lost both his chief of staff and director of communications.
What makes this situation particularly extraordinary is that other civil servants refused to authorize Wormald's £260,000 severance payment, arguing that without any stated reason for his departure, it represented poor use of taxpayer funds. Starmer was forced to issue an official "direction" to override these objections and proceed with the payment.
Leadership Vacuum and Civil Service Empowerment
Starmer's desperation to remove Wormald was so great that he failed to have a replacement ready. The position will now be temporarily filled by three permanent secretaries, including Antonia Romeo of the Home Office, who was reportedly Starmer's preferred candidate until Simon McDonald, her former boss at the Foreign Office, raised concerns about the appointment requiring "more due diligence."
This leadership vacuum has inadvertently strengthened the civil service's position. Many now believe it would have been better to retain Karen Pierce, the Foreign Office career diplomat who was displaced by Lord Mandelson in Washington. Starmer's earlier criticism of Whitehall as being "comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline" now seems particularly ironic, given how his personnel mistakes have empowered the very institution he sought to reform.
Political Consequences and Diminished Authority
Starmer's poor judgment in appointments has had significant political consequences, handing power not only to the civil service but also to the "soft-left" faction of Labour MPs. Some defenders argue that with key right-wing advisors gone and the Reform-facing strategy abandoned, Starmer has been liberated to embrace his true "soft-left" identity.
However, the reality appears quite different. More than ever, Starmer seems like a prisoner in Number 10, constrained by his own mistakes and diminished authority. The pattern of failed appointments suggests a deeper problem with his leadership style and decision-making process, raising serious concerns about his ability to govern effectively.
As the Prime Minister continues to struggle with personnel decisions, the fundamental question remains: can a leader who demonstrates such poor judgment in selecting key advisors and officials effectively steer the country through complex challenges? The Wormald episode suggests the answer may be increasingly negative.
