Reform UK’s reported civil service purge plan would be a big mistake

Recent reporting  suggests that a future Reform UK government would dismiss the two top layers of every government department – permanent secretaries and directors general ¹⁸ Walker P, ‘Reform UK government would replace top civil servants with those ‘more likely to implement party’s priorities’, The Guardian, 14 March 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/14/reform-uk-government-replace-top-civil-servants-people-aligned-policies   ¹⁹ Neilan C, ‘Reform plans ‘ideological purge’ of Whitehall’, The Observer, 14 March 2026, https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/reform-plans-ideological-purge-of-whitehall  – and replace these officials with political appointees and external hires, or in some cases, promote existing officials “viewed as more suitable”. ²⁰ Neilan C, ‘Reform plans ‘ideological purge’ of Whitehall’, The Observer, 14 March 2026, https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/reform-plans-ideological-purge-of-whitehall

This policy would build on Reform UK’s previously articulated plans for the civil service, with Danny Kruger, the party’s head of preparation for government, suggesting that reaching the top of the civil service is a “bad sign” as it requires conforming to a “very, very strict orthodoxy of belief and practice”. ²¹ Rodgers S, ‘Danny Kruger: ‘If We Don’t Win, Or If We Win And Make A Mess Of It, I Fear For Our Country’, PoliticsHome, 23 February 2026, https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/danny-kruger-if-dont-win-win-make-mess-it-fear-country

There is no doubt that the civil service needs radical change, but Reform UK’s reported plans would erode state capacity.

The civil service needs radical change

The Institute for Government has repeatedly argued for fundamental change in the civil service. We have recommended compulsory redundancy rounds, improvements to external recruitment and an overhaul of the centre of government. In 2024, we put forward 20 ways for the civil service to improve. The Labour government has – increasingly vocally – made the same argument: Keir Starmer tasked his (first) cabinet secretary with “nothing less than the complete rewiring of the British state”.

But while there have been some moves in the right direction – the re-establishment of a national school of government and public service, for example, is an important step towards tackling the inadequate provision of rigorous and targeted training and skills development – radical rewiring of the state has so far been conspicuous by its absence. Labour has failed to translate its reform rhetoric into action, as its concept of ‘mission-led government’ has collapsed under the weight of the varied initiatives that have claimed its name.  ²² https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/whitehall-monitor-2026/part-1-government All this may, of course, change with the appointment of the new cabinet secretary. But, for now, the government is not doing enough to tackle the skills and performance problems that undermine the state’s ability to deliver, and with it damage political confidence in the civil service.

The Conservatives are not filling this space with alternative reform plans. In his party conference speech, for example, shadow chancellor Mel Stride’s big pitch echoed those of many of his predecessors – yet again a simplistic headcount target to return the civil service to 2016 staffing levels. And so, the genuine and pressing capability and capacity needs in the civil service remain unaddressed. Effective people are either trapped in a system that isn’t working for them or are unable to get a place in it. And ineffective people are not being removed.

Reform UK’s reported plans would erode state capacity

Other liberal democracies have a political layer at the top of their civil services, and make it work effectively. In the federal government of Germany, for example, the two most senior roles (equivalent to permanent secretary and director general) are political appointments. ²⁴ Party time: exploring Germany’s system of political civil servants’  But this system has evolved over the last two centuries. Advocating for a mass sacking at the top would mean potential Reform UK ministers have failed to make the positive case for a new UK system with more political civil servants.

On capability and performance, the argument appears to be that those who ‘believe’ in a government’s plans will be more likely to enact them, and that the binding constraint on civil service effectiveness is belief in the political project. It is not. None of the problems with the existing system – misaligned pay and promotion, lack of outside experience, poor performance management – is immediately fixed by removing and then politicising the top layer. And even if you agree with Kruger’s proposition that the top layer has failed to grip those same problems, it does not follow that they all must go. Doing so would remove crucial institutional memory and expertise on which the government, as any other institution, relies. It would also send a sharp signal to both future and current civil servants that their promotion relies on being seen as a believer – and so sweep away the incentive to offer frank and direct advice.

Incoming governments should have a license to shake up the top of the civil service, bring in fresh expertise, and remove poor performers. Impartiality also requires civil servants to serve the government of the day – those who are not ready to do so would need to resign. But a blanket removal of the institutional memory and capacity of the whole civil service leadership would only damage the state, and the people it serves.

The status quo cannot continue

Reform UK’s reported proposals are one more expression of political mistrust in, and frustration with, the civil service. That mistrust is increasingly widespread among political parties, with relationships between politicians and civil servants stuck on the downward spiral since at least 2016.

The solutions currently being offered by political parties do not offer a convincing way out. They are either over-simplistic and damaging – as in the case of the Conservative headcount cut and Reform UK’s plans to dismiss top civil servants – or far too timid, as in the case of Labour’s current reforms and those generated from inside the civil service itself.

Unless and until ministers (of any party) and civil servants together give civil service reform the time, effort, and boldness it requires, frustrations will continue. The civil service slowly gets less effective and calls for simplistic proposals will grow louder. There is ample space for bold and considered reforms, and plenty of ideas to implement, including from the Institute. The chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones, and newly appointed cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo, must make that change happen. Failure to do so now risks the state being slow eroded by tepid incrementalism, before finding itself subjected to a simplistic and damaging shock to the system.