Imagine waking up to headlines of a top official being unceremoniously ousted, their decades-long career tarnished in a single day. This is exactly what happened to Chris Wormald, the UK’s most senior civil servant, who found himself at the center of a political storm on February 9th. But here’s where it gets controversial: Was his dismissal a justified move by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, or a calculated act of humiliation that exposes deeper issues within the government? Let’s dive in.
Wormald, a seasoned policy expert, arrived at Downing Street that morning expecting business as usual—or as usual as it gets in the eye of a political crisis. Little did he know, he was about the become the latest casualty of Starmer’s turbulent leadership. Just a day after Morgan McSweeney’s dramatic resignation as chief of staff, Wormald was summoned to the Prime Minister’s office and handed his walking papers. A friend described him as ‘stunned,’ a sentiment echoed by many who knew him. Despite months of whispers suggesting Starmer’s dissatisfaction, Wormald had been assured by top officials that his job was secure. The speculation, as one friend put it, had become mere ‘background noise.’
And this is the part most people miss: The news of his dismissal hit the press before the terms of his exit were even finalized, strategically timed to overshadow Starmer’s high-stakes appearance before the Parliamentary Labour Party that evening. ‘The Labour government humiliated the head of the civil service in front of everyone,’ a friend of Wormald’s lamented. His 35-year career ended not with a quiet retirement, but with a bitter, public downfall, fueled by months of unchecked attacks in the media.
Civil servants are outraged, though many admit Wormald wasn’t the ideal fit for the role. ‘Chris is a brilliant policy wonk, but he’s not a disrupter,’ a former colleague noted. Another likened him to ‘Sir Humphrey’ from Yes, Minister—a quintessential backroom operator. His role, as he saw it, was to inject reality into ambitious policies, like the digital ID initiative that the government was forced to abandon. Yet, Wormald was Starmer’s choice, appointed five months into his tenure, not inherited. Starmer, scarred by the fallout over Sue Gray’s departure, wanted someone ‘on the shop floor, not the shop window.’ He tasked Wormald with ‘rewiring the British state,’ a mission so vague that even Wormald’s friends admit Starmer never clearly defined it.
Nineteen months later, Wormald was sacked, branded ineffective—a scapegoat in Starmer’s bid to salvage his own reputation amid the Mandelson affair, in which Wormald played no part. Even those who believed he was miscast for the role are appalled by his treatment. ‘It’s nothing short of appalling,’ one civil servant fumed. Many see Wormald as the latest victim of No 10’s toxic culture of ‘performance review by osmosis’—where criticism is leaked to the press, denied in private, and persists until the target is removed. A No 10 source offered a cryptic defense: ‘The PM wouldn’t have done it if he’d thought everything was tip-top.’
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: Starmer, once a defender of the civil service against Conservative attacks, has become one of its harshest critics since taking office. Months into his tenure, he accused Whitehall of being ‘comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline.’ Though he later backpedaled, the sentiment lingered. He repeated similar criticisms recently, lamenting the system’s inertia and his frustration with pulling ‘levers that don’t move.’
Civil servants and Labour aides alike agree the system is broken. Brexit and Covid triggered mass recruitment, leaving the service bloated and inexperienced. ‘Too many people, too much overlap,’ one senior official noted, ‘with a generation promoted too soon, leading to subpar policy advice.’ Risk aversion, exacerbated by the Conservative years, has left ministers with vague, caveat-laden recommendations. Even when the civil service shines, it’s often only in crises, as one mandarin observed. Starmer’s December comments highlighted slow legal and regulatory systems, but civil servants argue their own reforms have been equally sluggish.
Starmer was warned about these issues before taking office. Labour aides advised him to bring back former civil servants and empower cabinet ministers to push their agendas. But, as one former No 10 aide put it, ‘Too many went native.’ Now, civil servants and Labour insiders point to Starmer himself as one of the biggest problems. His lack of clear political direction, they argue, has allowed the civil service’s worst tendencies to flourish. ‘Ambiguity is their playground,’ a former aide remarked. Without clear guidance, different factions within the service have pursued their own agendas, further fragmenting the system.
Here’s a thought-provoking question: Is Starmer’s leadership style to blame, or is he simply inheriting a system too broken to fix? Compare him to Rishi Sunak, who actively engaged with the civil service, building reliable teams and diving into the details. ‘Starmer doesn’t seem capable of that,’ one civil servant noted, ‘and doesn’t see it as his job.’
The problem isn’t just Starmer, though. Special advisers, with their ‘bunker mentality,’ have failed to collaborate effectively with civil servants, further alienating the two groups. As Starmer’s popularity plummets, his team blames the system—including civil servants who can’t defend themselves. Ironically, civil servants share the public’s frustration, fearing they’ll lose trust if deep-rooted issues aren’t addressed. ‘The service needs a major kick,’ one senior official warned, ‘or we’ll lose our license to operate.’
Enter Antonia Romeo, the frontrunner to replace Wormald. Overlooked by Starmer initially for fear of attracting too much press, Romeo is now seen as the favorite. Known for her colorful leadership style—including glamorous parties in New York as British Consul—she’s proven her ability to deliver, most recently as the top civil servant at the Home Office. While some call her a ‘Marmite’ character, others believe her energy and dynamism are exactly what the civil service needs to rebuild its image.
Whoever takes the helm will face a daunting task: reinvigorating a demoralized civil service and proving it can deliver before it’s too late. Here’s the real question for you: Can the civil service reform itself in time, or is its fate already sealed? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a debate.
