1. After a few reads of Michael Gove’s speech, The Privilege of Public Service, I am drawn to this line:

‘Unless they [various challenges] are thoughtfully addressed, we risk worsening the morbid symptoms of our times.’ (30).

2. We might agree the metaphorical patient is unwell but is this government capable of curing its ailments or will it makes the symptoms worse? Rather than a sign of healing, is it evidence of the disease’s next stage, at best a rallying stage before the inevitable relapse?

3. The best part of the speech is its acknowledgement and identification of the challenges: the ‘deep sense of disenchantment on the part of many of our citizens’ (12).

4. But this acceptance of the problem is hardly unique to Gove and colleagues.

5. We all know - or we should - that the failure to ensure the continued growth of prosperity has had a deleterious impact on faith in government.

And we all should know that new technology, climate change et al will change lives.

6. At this stage, the casual reader might be forgiven for thinking that this is a speech based on analysis rather than politics.

But that would not be the correct reading.

7. The appropriation of historical comparisons, to the 1930s and to Roosevelt, is a revealing tell.

Of course anyone can draw superficial historical comparisons to anything but the similarity between the current period and the 1930s is at best chalk to cheese.

8. As for Roosevelt, we should be able to agree that Johnson, whatever his virtues, is no Roosevelt.

9. Why then the historical comparisons? Why not write about current challenges in the context of the present rather than the past?

10. Because history, ironically, is being rewritten to lend legitimacy to two key aspects of the new government’s political establishment: challenging times demand radical measures; the new leadership’s reformist credentials are impeccable.

11. Later in the speech, much is made of the need for rigorous analysis and the need to move away from the ‘sugar rush’ (57) of grand policy announcements.

It is a little ironic that the speech’s employment of the past owes more to simplistic literary-historicism than analysis.

12. The speech is interestingly self-subversive. To draw a different analogy, it might be considered a ‘gracefully performative’ (58) firework show - exciting bangs and pretty colours but over in minutes and remembered for scarcely longer.

13. A key reason identified for the patient’s morbidity is deeply ideological – those famously unfahionable anywheres versus the in vogue somewheres.

14. This is pointedly expressed: ‘The views, tastes and concerns of those who write for the NYT, who run higher education institutions, who chair business representative organisations, advise on ESG responsibilities for corporates and indeed run Government departments’ (17)

15. The theme of ‘us' vs ‘them’ runs through the speech and, unsurprisingly, is conveniently reflected in the great lesson of the Brexit referendum...

16. ... whose central lesson, the yawning gap between the people and the establishment, must be a central part of the reform of government: ‘…how can we be less anywhere and more somewhere – closer to the 52% who voted to Leave, and more understanding of why?’ (69)

17. If national division is a symptom of the disease, its pointed prolongation is hardly likely to be part of the cure.

18. The risk perhaps even the likelihood is that the referendum is used simply as a device to reverse the ideological polarity, thereby prolonging division.

From us vs them to them vs us.

Plus ca change.

19. There is much happy talk of reform and some of the reforms advocated are sensible.

20. Much is made of accountability. Good – there should be more accountability.

But there is little evidence of this interest in accountability.

21. Away from the speech’s airy aspirations, the government’s well publicised conduct issues are treated with a peremptory, ‘Move on’.

22. More importantly, the government's lamentable performance at dealing with the epidemic attracts no critical reflection, let alone accountability.

23. Indeed, in a triumph of solipsism over self-awareness, the pandemic apparently provides even more evidence for the government’s view that the civil service is not fit for purpose.

24. And yet the crucial decisions made during the pandemic crisis were political.

25. Guided, led, following, however you wish, by the science, but the politicians must own their failures – the slowness of the lockdown, the failure to prepare the necessary equipment and testing capability, the tragedy of the care homes, the contact app debacle.

26. If the political leadership do not take responsibility what is the point of these pretty words?

27. A leadership that has presided over one of the worst pandemic performances in the world might want to be a little more careful about telling others they are not fit for purpose.

28. Let’s take an example raised in the speech. The government’s approach to ventilator sourcing apparently demonstrates that, ‘…a willingness to experiment will help drive up a huge increase in ventilator capacity. (116).

29. Did it? Will it? Well I have heard much to the contrary.

And in any case, isn’t the more pressing issue why we were in the position of so desperately needing ventilators at such short notice?

30. But let’s take the government at its word.

In which case, why not a limited enquiry that looks specifically at the effectiveness of PPE and ventilator procurement during the first phase of the crisis.

Surely this would be consistent with this fervour for accountability?

31. Careful readers will note that this zeal for accountability has one very large get-out clause, of which the ventilators are in part an example...

32. Experimentation is a key reform that must be encouraged:

‘We need to move to a system where those who propose the innovative, the different, the challenging, are given room to progress and, if necessary, fail.’ (111)

33. Who could possibly disagree?

But we are left with the sneaking suspicion that this enthusiasm for experimentation may be used to justify the pursuit of cherished projects and excuse unwarranted failure.

34. The best organisations fit innovative decision-making into an accommodating but rigorous governance structure. Perhaps this is what is happening here.

35. In which case, I look forward to the detailed disclosure of the cost / benefits of the satellite company purchase plan, a transparent explanation of the decision-making process, and the accountability of all involved.

36. The passionate discussion of procurement might also cause th cynical to waggle their eyebrows.

Yes, procurement, like anything else, can slide into complacent ruts.

But a rigorous, unbiased, detailed process that leaves no room for any conflict of interest is still needed.

37. Similarly, who would not extol the virtues of ‘deep subject knowledge’ (104) and avoiding ‘groupthink’ (66)?

Yet the people at the very top of government appear to have little deep knowledge other than politics and campaigning.

A clear case of physicians heal thyselves.

38. And as for groupthink, there is a very large elephant, a woolly mammoth even, in the room.

Does anyone seriously think that any critical challenge to the Brexit process will be permitted at the highest levels of government?

39. We are left with the impression that all this grand talk of reform is just that, talk.

Behind the pretty words is a very obvious expression of political power and a very clear message: we are in charge now – get on board or get out of the way.

40. We all agree the patient is not well. But the cure is not all this pretty talk, and it is certainly not more political ideology and division.

41. Focus on good decision-making. Otherwise the prognosis for the patient is very poor indeed.

/ends