The short version
- McSweeney contends that quasi-judicial powers assigned to individual ministers restrict broader cabinet deliberation and prime ministerial oversight on critical national issues.
- The former chief of staff advocates for codifying the prime minister’s authority and removing outdated conventions that impede administrative speed and effectiveness.
- This critique emerges as McSweeney reflects on Labour’s early governance challenges, citing a lack of preparation for rapid policy implementation in a volatile global environment.
Morgan McSweeney, who served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer until February of this year, has issued a pointed critique of the current constitutional framework governing the UK cabinet. Speaking before the House of Lords constitution committee, McSweeney argued that specific quasi-judicial powers granted to individual ministers are obstructing effective government operations. He suggested that these mechanisms prevent necessary wider discussions within the cabinet and limit the prime minister’s ability to provide input on matters of significant national importance.
The core of McSweeney’s argument centers on the idea that certain decision-making processes have become too siloed. He pointed to the energy secretary’s authority to approve future oil and gas fields as a primary example. Under the current system, decisions regarding major projects like the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields were handled by Ed Miliband and later his successor, Miatta Fahnbulleh, with limited broader executive scrutiny. McSweeney implied that such high-stakes determinations should be subject to more comprehensive cabinet review rather than being confined to a single minister’s quasi-judicial discretion.
Beyond energy policy, McSweeney highlighted other instances where these powers may have constrained collective governance. He referenced the housing and local government secretary, Steve Reed, who held the authority to decide on the construction of a new Chinese super-embassy in east London. By isolating these decisions within specific ministerial portfolios, the government risks bypassing the collaborative decision-making processes that McSweeney believes are essential for addressing complex national challenges.
In addition to challenging quasi-judicial powers, McSweeney called for a significant reduction in the unwritten conventions that govern the prime minister’s role. He described the current landscape as a thicket of rules that need to be cleared away to allow for more efficient governance. One specific convention he cited involved advice given to Starmer that he should not issue letters to cabinet ministers outlining priorities or requesting progress updates. McSweeney viewed such restrictions as counterproductive, arguing they hinder the prime minister’s ability to manage the executive branch effectively.
The former chief of staff emphasized that the problem is not necessarily any single rule but the cumulative weight of these conventions. He stated that many existing protocols were designed to prevent abuse of power, which he acknowledged should be preserved. However, he argued that other rules have outlived their usefulness and now serve primarily to slow down government operations. McSweeney suggested that the prime minister’s powers should be formally codified, written down, and justified, ensuring that only those necessary for preventing abuse remain in place.
McSweeney’s comments reflect a broader concern about the capacity of the current administration to deliver on its electoral mandate. He noted that constitutional democracy faces pressure not only from potential abuses of power but also from the failure of governments to implement the programs voters elected them to enact. By adhering strictly to traditional conventions, he argued, the government may be failing to operate at the speed required to address urgent issues and meet public expectations for change.
Starmer himself has previously expressed frustration regarding the limitations placed on his executive authority. McSweeney’s testimony aligns with these sentiments, suggesting that the prime minister has been unable to pull as many levers of power as he might have desired due to institutional constraints. This internal tension highlights a growing debate within the Labour party about how best to balance democratic accountability with administrative efficiency in a rapidly changing political landscape.
McSweeney departed his role in February following controversy surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. In interviews this year, he admitted that Labour had not been sufficiently prepared for the demands of government or the volatility of the global environment when Starmer took office. Despite being credited with orchestrating the party’s significant victory in 2024, McSweeney acknowledged a gap between electoral success and the practical ability to implement policy changes quickly.
The call for reform comes at a time when the UK government is grappling with numerous domestic and international challenges. McSweeney’s proposals suggest a need for a fundamental rethink of how executive power is distributed and exercised. By advocating for fewer, more justified rules and greater transparency in the prime minister’s authority, he aims to create a system that can respond more agilely to crises while maintaining essential checks against authoritarian overreach.
As the House of Lords committee considers these recommendations, the debate underscores the ongoing tension between tradition and modernity in British governance. McSweeney’s intervention adds weight to arguments that the current constitutional arrangements may be ill-suited for the complexities of contemporary politics. Whether his calls for codification and simplification will lead to tangible changes remains to be seen, but they highlight a critical moment of reflection on the mechanics of UK executive power.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Morgan McSweeney calls for rethink of UK cabinet ministers’ ‘quasi-judicial’ powers
