Lisa Nandy's Culture Department faces axe
Lisa Nandy's Culture Department is facing the axe in Downing Street's civil service efficiency drive, throwing her Cabinet future into doubt.
The move would bring to an end 33 years of a standalone government department for arts and cultural matters, amounting to a major Whitehall overhaul.
It would also leave Ms Nandy, the Culture Secretary who once stood against Sir Keir for the Labour leadership, out of a job.
A decision would be needed on whether to create space for her elsewhere on the front bench. Currently there are no Cabinet vacancies.
No 10 insiders believe the existing policy briefs that sit in the Culture Department could easily be moved into other departments. But it would likely mean some job cuts.
There is a wider drive from Sir Keir's allies to streamline the Civil Service, including reducing overall running costs by 15 per cent and relocating roles out of London.
'Plan for change'
A Whitehall insider familiar with thinking said: 'If we want to deliver the Plan for Change you can't just do business as usual. You have to do stuff differently, you have to be reformers.'
The so-called 'plan for change' is a reference to Sir Keir's priorities in office. The plan was published in December and includes targets for slashing NHS waiting lists and improving early educational standards.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as it is formally called, has had various iterations and titles during its three decades of existence.
It was created by the Conservatives in 1992 as the Department of National Heritage and covered the arts, broadcasting, film, sport, architecture and historic sites, royal parks and tourism.
An early achievement was overseeing the creation of the National Lottery, which was launched during Sir John Major's premiership.
It has been through many changes. In 2023, culture ministers lost oversight of online safety rules when they were moved into the newly created Science, Innovation and Technology Department.
Formal advice on closing the Culture Department was drafted for Sir Keir's speech on March 13 when he announced the abolition of NHS England and vowed to tackle government 'bureaucracy'.
Ultimately, the announcement was not made then but The Telegraph understands that there remains interest in taking the move in Number 10. No final decision has been locked in.
The abolition of the body would lead to a carve-up of which other departments should take over responsibility for specific policy areas.
Areas covering cultural issues and the arts could be given to the Communities Department, under early thinking, while media matters could be moved to the Business Department.
Who would become responsible for the BBC licence fee would be closely watched, given how many millions of Britons pay it every year.
The drive behind the change is understood not to be a wish for a wider reshuffle. Downing Street continues to insist '100 per cent' that no major reshuffle is being planned for the near future.
One well-placed Starmer ally said: 'It is about a lean and agile state. It is not about individuals or reshuffles.'
But the move would raise questions about what happens to the department's ministers: Ms Nandy, Sir Chris Bryant, the creative industries minister, and two parliamentary under-secretaries of state: Stephanie Peacock and Baroness Twycross.
Ms Nandy ran against Sir Keir in the 2020 Labour leadership race, finishing a distant third behind both Sir Keir and Rebecca Long-Bailey.
She was handed the senior role of shadow foreign secretary in Sir Keir's first front bench appointments but was demoted twice: first to shadow communities secretary in November 2021 and then to shadow international development minister in September 2023.
Ms Nandy was unexpectedly given the Culture Secretary role when Labour won office last summer after Baroness Debbonaire, who held the shadow brief, lost her seat as an MP in the general election.
Sir Keir and his inner circle have hardened their views of the Civil Service and the need for reform after becoming frustrated with how hard it has proved to deliver their policy goals.
The Prime Minister surprised some commentators and civil service trade union representatives when he criticised the approach of officials in a speech in December.
Sir Keir said: 'Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. Have forgotten, to paraphrase JFK, that you choose change, not because it's easy but because it's hard.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Reeves urged to fund libraries, parks and social centres in left-behind areas
'Red wall' Labour MPs are urging Rachel Reeves to fund grassroots 'social infrastructure' such as parks, community centres and libraries, as well as high-profile transport projects, to ensure voters in left-behind areas can benefit from growth. The Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (Icon), chaired by the Labour peer Hilary Armstrong and supported by a string of backbenchers, has identified 613 'mission critical' local areas. It is calling on the government to pilot community-led regeneration schemes in places like these – which are defined as those furthest away from contributing to Labour's targets, including on growth and social mobility. Such neighbourhoods are characterised by higher unemployment, 'dramatically higher' welfare spending, and 40% lower productivity than the national average, Icon finds – and many voted Reform in last month's local elections. Ahead of next week's spending review, Reeves trumpeted plans for an additional £113bn in capital spending over the next five years, including £15bn on transport projects outside London and the south-east. The chancellor's rewritten fiscal rules allow for a significant expansion in borrowing to fund such investment, which Reeves has called 'the lifeblood of growth'. But the commission argues many projects that would be classified as day-to-day spending, which is more tightly constrained under Reeves's rules, are essential for improving long-neglected local areas. 'Buses and trams are important, but they're not the whole picture,' said Armstrong, who was the Labour MP for North West Durham from 1987 to 2010. 'The problem is that big infrastructure projects, like, you know, trains, bridges, roads, take a long time, and people don't really feel that they're in control of what's happening.' She added: 'Unless people are getting the skills, feel confident about who they are and what their opportunities are and actually believe that they are able to build real opportunities for their kids, for their families, for their communities, then they're not going to be doing the work that will add to the growth of the economy.' Jake Richards, the MP for Rother Valley, said: 'Transport and other infrastructure projects are really important, but we must not overlook the importance of social infrastructure, which will be critical to the government's missions. Sure Start is perhaps the best example of this, bringing remarkable benefits for millions of families in our most disadvantaged communities.' Armstrong cited a project in Wolverhampton the commission recently visited, which employed a chef to cater for community lunches. 'They came together and they chatted and they talked and they set things up coming out of it,' she said. She called on the Treasury to consider social infrastructure when judging how funds should be disbursed. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion 'It's about, how do you get a sense of pride in where you come from, where you live, neighbours that you can talk to because you share a meal with them once a week, or something – it's actually enabling people to get to know each other a bit better and be more confident in each other. That will absolutely transform people's lives.' Chris Webb, the MP for Blackpool South, said: 'Towns like Blackpool, the most deprived in England, are poorly served by traditional economic infrastructure, which tends to benefit the big cities more than isolated coastal towns. This government must draw on our party's proud history of rebuilding communities to directly invest in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.' The North Durham MP, Luke Akehurst, said: 'Investing in social infrastructure such as community centres, parks and libraries, would start to plug my constituency back into the national economy, which it has been excluded from for far too long.' Icon is funded by the Local Trust, which was set up to implement Big Local, a national lottery-funded project due to end next year, that gave more than 150 neighbourhoods more than £1m each to spend over a decade on locally led regeneration and fostering community connections. Analysis of Big Local by Icon suggests these areas saw greater declines in crime and smaller increases in economic inactivity than similar neighbourhoods outside the scheme.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reform is a serious political force in Scotland but Tories in trouble
Formerly a seat where the SNP could be confident of winning a substantial majority, Hamilton is now a marginal seat for the first time, with a Labour majority of just 602 votes over the SNP. Reform UK is clearly on the march in Scotland, and this result bears out the surge in support for the party seen in British-wide opinion polls so far this year, with over a quarter of voters who turned out in Hamilton casting their vote for the party. Read more It would be wrong to read too much into one by-election result. By-elections are unusual events, where governments tend to lose support, people may vote in protest and turnout is typically much lower than at Holyrood elections. Nonetheless, the result in Hamilton will matter to all Scotland's parties for its symbolic importance ahead of next May's Scottish Parliament elections. For Scottish Labour, this by-election win will help to reverse the recent narrative of Labour decline. Following the party's slump in the polls over the last 10 months, the result signals that Labour can still win in Scotland and will put wind back in the party's sails. It underlines that listening to and acting on voters' concerns can help to turn the party's fortunes around – Keir Starmer's announcement of a U-turn on cuts to the winter fuel payment may well have helped the party's popularity among voters in Hamilton. The win will also give the UK Labour Party a much-needed boost, after its heavy losses in parts of England at May's local elections, losing the Runcorn by-election to Reform UK and trailing 7 points behind Reform UK in the polls UK-wide. Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England (Image: free) The result is a major blow to the SNP, who were widely tipped to win the seat. While incumbent governments tend to suffer at by-elections, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse is the kind of central belt seat that the SNP will need to retain if it is to hold onto power in Scotland next May. This result is an early sign that that will be a tough contest. The SNP has topped recent national polls, with a double-digit lead over Scottish Labour – a remarkable position for a party that has been in power in Scotland for 18 years. This by-election will be an unwelcome reminder that voters' preferences can and do shift. While John Swinney is widely seen as having steadied the ship since his election as party leader last May – and is the least unpopular of any of the party leaders among voters – this result suggests more turbulent times may lie ahead for the SNP. Reform UK were the unknown quantity ahead of this by-election. Their performance in Hamilton, finishing less than 1,000 votes behind the SNP, proves that the party can attract significant swathes of voters north of the border as well as in England. The result emphasises that Reform UK are now a serious political force in Scotland. Ahead of the next Holyrood elections, the party has a real opportunity to paint itself as the home for voters who want change. While Nigel Farage is less popular in Scotland than he is in England, this does not appear to have been holding the party back in the polls – reflecting that the rise of Reform UK may be being driven by wider public dissatisfaction and the unpopularity of other parties more than by views of its leadership. The result signals continued gloom for the Conservatives in Scotland. While the party was widely expected to come fourth, this was a poor result for Russell Findlay's party, who managed to hang onto their deposit with 6% of the vote. Read more The pattern seen in recent Scotland polls of the Conservatives haemorrhaging voter support to Reform has been borne out at this by-election. On this evidence, the Conservatives have a mountain to climb if they are to convince Scottish voters to lend them their votes next May. Will the result in Hamilton turn out to be a sign of which way the electoral winds are blowing ahead of Holyrood elections next May? It certainly underlines that this is a time of volatility in Scottish politics and shifting voter preferences. While Anas Sarwar and his team will take heart from this win, Scottish Labour's fortunes are closely connected with those of the UK party. How Scotland's voters are feeling about the UK Government's performance under Keir Starmer's leadership is likely to be an important factor shaping voter support at the ballot box. If it is to take seats from the SNP next May, Scottish Labour needs to show those who voted for the UK party at the General Election because of issues like public services, the cost of living and inequality that they were right to do so. Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos Scotland
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As US retreats, is there a ‘soft power' opportunity for UK?
The US is retreating from international cooperation, cutting support for free media abroad and reducing financial aid. Russia and China are spending up to £8bn on their global media activities to boost their influence. Amid these global tensions, the UK government recognises the dangers of a western retreat – but is struggling to fund a response. With such huge shifts in world politics, it is no wonder that some politicians fear the west is losing the 'soft power' battle – a phrase coined by the academic Joseph Nye in the 1980s to describe the ability to influence other nations through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. While it may seem a frustratingly abstract concept, recent world events suggest its use has very real consequences. China was viewed favourably by 29% of people studied across 18 countries in 2021. After huge soft power efforts, the figure has now increased to 40%, according to a study by the BBC and Tapestry Research. The study separately surveyed a group across 10 countries made up of people involved in business decisions. Among that group, China's favourability had increased from 39% to 51%. It found that watching CGTN or RT, the respective state broadcasters of China and Russia, made viewers more favourable to those countries. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been defunding independent media overseas such as Voice of America, known for delivering independent journalism to countries with restricted press freedoms. Overseas aid is being targeted. Over a longer period, Britain's traditionally potent soft power has been misfiring. 'The UK's soft power has been in decline roughly since Brexit, for the last 10 years, but we're still a top-tier player,' said Jonathan McClory, an expert on soft power who recently authored a report on the issue for Labour Together, a thinktank with close ties to Downing Street. 'We haven't managed to establish a compelling narrative of who we are and where we're going since Brexit … We've got a proper change in government, which gives the opportunity to do that. We have a willing audience, but we have to say what it is we're good at and act accordingly,' McClory said. UK ministers have recognised the urgency of the situation and also realise the opportunity for Britain's economy in fostering stronger international ties. The government set up a soft power council earlier this year and populated it with figures from across media, education, defence and beyond. It was a widely welcomed initiative, plugging in soft power to the top of government. A formal strategy is expected to follow this autumn. However, there is also a conflict at the heart of government. It is clear to most insiders that even the best-designed strategy will require funding. Key soft power institutions are struggling to cope with financial pressures, most notably the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities. Members of the newly formed soft power council are treading carefully, conscious that many ministers are sympathetic to the need for funding but have a tough task in securing it from the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who is facing a myriad of pressing demands. Tristram Hunt, the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum and a member of the council, said: 'There is an importance in a growing age of autocracy to have that voice [of liberal, democratic values] heard. Budgets are strained and it's hard. We can't pick up all the slack left by a retreating America. But if we believe in these values, it's important to be on the front foot with them as far as we can.' Others on the council are more bullish, arguing that the US retreat creates a strategic opening for Britain. 'We have this incredible opportunity,' said Neil Mendoza, who served as a culture commissioner under the previous government. 'You have a threat on the one hand but also this opportunity because America has withdrawn. It is also cheap as chips – and can work in close partnership with hard power. Why wouldn't you invest in soft power?'
