said – and denied by Patel – that there was a “toxic atmosphere” and that she had created an “atmosphere of
fear”. There were lurid allegations about bullying, belittling officials in meetings and making unreasonable
demands, particularly on the new points-based immigration system.
The cabinet secretary, Mark Sedwill, was drawn into the saga, the rest of Fleet Street sniffed a good tale
with plenty of human interest, and opposition MPs started to call for her sacking. Conveniently, the Patel
story fitted nicely into a pattern and growing movement highlighting workplace bullying along with
allegations against speaker John Bercow (which he has denied) and the Westminster/Whitehall culture of
bullying – a strong “narrative”, as the saying goes.
The story rumbled on, as they do, for a few days. There was a “briefing war”, Tory MPs lined up to support
Patel against a supposedly recalcitrant civil service, and Downing Street expressed varying degrees of
confidence in her. The Patel/bullying story was starting to lose momentum, overtaken by the flooding and,
of course, coronavirus. The public and the press were starting to get distracted.
The “10-day rule” period was up, so to speak, on Saturday 29 February. Had the story petered out at that
point, Patel might well be more confident of her survival. However, with impeccable timing, it was at that
very point that Rutnam decided to make a dramatic on-camera resignation, all the more newsworthy for
happening on a weekend. He declared that he had refused offers to keep his trap shut with a generous
payoff, and would be taking Patel to an employment tribunal. This would mean the home secretary would
be forced to give witness evidence, be cross-examined on oath (presumably by a QC) and potentially
humiliated.
It is difficult to envisage a home secretary, of all people, being filmed going into a court room, with a circus
of reporters observing the proceedings. If they are going to let her go, the question is when
It was and is difficult for any government or minister to view such an event with equanimity. The Rutman
resignation and new allegations certainly dominated the news agenda for days afterwards. The 10-day rule
was reset. Even the hurriedly released news on the Saturday of the Symonds-Johnson baby plus engagement
failed to protect Patel from some more rough coverage.
Since that point, yet more allegations have emerged, the most damaging being that one civil servant, it was
reported again in banner headlines, had tried to take her own life after an encounter with Patel. The Cabinet
Office has announced an inquiry, and Downing Street started to be more equivocal about her. When
Michael Gove faced the Commons and announced an official internal inquiry, he called Patel a “superb”
minister, a suspiciously over-the-top commendation.
A few days before, another colleague, Mike Hancock, stressed that he wasn’t close to events in the Home
Office while professing routine loyalty. On the other hand, at the latest prime minister’s questions, Boris
Johnson sat pointedly next to Patel in solidarity and said he was “sticking by her”. Then again, it has also
been reported that the prime minister’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, hasn’t much trust in her
abilities.
Can she survive now? Again, it is difficult to envisage a home secretary, of all people, being filmed going
into a court room, with a circus of reporters observing the proceedings (as they are entitled to do). If they
are going to let her go, the question is when. To borrow another legendary spin doctor remark, they may be
better off picking a “good day to bury bad news”, and Patel’s career.
It is possible to sack a minister prematurely, when there is chance of survival and they could be perceived to
have been treated harshly. However, it generally denotes a certain ruthlessness and strength in a PM, and