International Development. She denies all the allegations.
One DfID official told me at the time that her attitude towards her staff was, “You’re all useless.” Another
said: “She was interested in her own career; she wasn’t interested in the department.” Her officials felt she
misled them over her infamous “holiday” to Israel, which forced her resignation because she had secret
meetings with senior Israeli figures. It has now emerged that after her departure, DfID officials lodged with
the Cabinet Office their concerns about her behaviour towards them.
Boris Johnson knew all about the Israel controversy because he was foreign secretary at the time. (Patel
privately blamed her downfall on leaks from Foreign Office officials). However, when it came to forming his
cabinet last July, Patel ticked several boxes: he trusted her, having spent time with her on the Vote Leave
battle bus in 2016; her appointment would boost diversity on two fronts; and she was hardline on crime, an
issue on which Johnson believed the Tories had lost their way under Theresa May’s premiership.
As Patel clings on to her job by her fingernails, Johnson has an agonising dilemma. He would like to stand
by her, but her continued presence will ensure more damaging headlines. Even in a less high-profile post,
there is no guarantee that her alleged treatment of civil servants would change. More officials would likely
feel emboldened to speak out. Johnson may eventually judge cutting her loose as the lesser of two evils. If
Rutnam were then persuaded to drop his unfair dismissal claim, it might spare the government a highly
embarrassing employment tribunal.
The Johnson government needs to put its Trump-like paranoia to one side
and work with officials, the overwhelming majority of whom want to deliver
for the government of the day, whatever its political hue
If Johnson were to force her out, it would reflect badly on his own judgement in appointing her to such a big
job in which she has looked out of her depth. Her media appearances have had to be rationed.
Characteristically, the feisty Patel is not going to go down without a fight. Her allies claim that sections of
the civil service are trying to undermine the home secretary, and that “dark forces” are trying to influence
the Cabinet Office inquiry into her conduct at the Home Office. This is yet another example of the Johnson
government taking a leaf out of the Trump playbook, in an echo of the president’s equally ludicrous
conspiracy theory about a “deep state” in Washington undermining his administration.
In politics, you reap what you sow. You cannot run a department of 35,000 civil servants, such as the Home
Office, with three trusted special advisers. The Johnson government needs to put its Trump-like paranoia to
one side and work with officials, the overwhelming majority of whom want to deliver for the government of
the day, whatever its political hue.
True, Team Boris is not the first administration to doubt the civil service’s loyalty. In 1997, the incoming
Blair government needlessly forced out the director of communications in almost every Whitehall
department, wrongly believing they were Conservative sympathisers after 18 years of Tory rule. Crucially,
however, Blair did tell his team to “work with them [civil servants], not against them.” Johnson should do
the same.
After the latest allegations about her time at DfID, there are signs that support for Patel in her own party is
waning. At lunchtime on Monday, Downing Street ruled out an inquiry into her behaviour. By 3.30pm, one
had been announced. Some Tory backbenchers who loyally parroted lines from the whips in support of her
in the Commons on Monday privately wonder if they did the right thing.