An ex-aide to Prime Minister Keir Starmer has warned that elected politicians have ceded so much authority to lawyers, activists and arms‑length bodies that they struggle to fulfil manifesto promises. Writing in The Times, Paul Ovenden — who resigned as the PM’s director of political strategy in September after offensive private messages from 2017 surfaced — said the British state has expanded while simultaneously restricting the practical power of ministers. He pointed to the recent handling of the British‑Egyptian activist Alaa Abd El Fattah’s case as emblematic of how Whitehall’s attention can be diverted. Ovenden and other commentators argue that ministers could reclaim capacity to act if they reshaped legal and regulatory constraints.
Key takeaways
- Paul Ovenden resigned in September 2024 after historic offensive messages from 2017 came to light and has since argued ministers have lost operational control to external actors.
- Ovenden says officials and ministers are often diverted by issues like the Alaa Abd El Fattah case, which dominated certain Whitehall discussions.
- Alaa Abd El Fattah spent more than a decade in an Egyptian prison, was released in September 2024 and arrived in the UK days before these reports; his past social posts have since caused controversy.
- Ovenden proposes rolling back some legal duties — for example environmental constraints on building — and limiting grounds for judicial review to speed delivery of government pledges.
- Chris Powell, a veteran campaigner and brother of adviser Jonathan Powell, urged a “fundamental reset” to counter electoral pressure from Reform UK ahead of local elections in May 2025.
- Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged lengthy checks and consultations slow government action, noting a 12–18 month perspective on institutional inertia.
Background
Debate about the balance between ministerial discretion and legal or procedural checks has deep roots in British governance. Over recent decades successive governments have added statutory duties, regulators and review processes in response to past failures, producing a dense framework of accountability. Critics argue those layers protect against mistakes but also create opportunities for well‑resourced campaign groups, lawyers and quangos to delay or block policy. Supporters of the status quo say those safeguards preserve rights, environmental standards and judicial scrutiny, preventing abuses of executive power.
Within the Labour government the discussion has become more public as officials and aides express frustration with the time it takes to translate decisions into action. The controversy around Alaa Abd El Fattah — a prominent campaigner who spent over a decade behind bars in Egypt — has crystallised some of those tensions. His detention, release in September 2024 and the discovery of incendiary social posts after his return have produced political headaches and exposed gaps in how different parts of government coordinate sensitive cases. At the same time, looming local elections in May 2025 and the prospect of internal challenges have intensified debate about the government’s pace and priorities.
Main event
In a newspaper piece and broadcast interviews, Paul Ovenden said ministers have “handed away power” to external actors and institutions and that this has diminished governments’ ability to deliver promises. He described repeated meetings where attention was drawn back to particular cases — notably Abd El Fattah’s — which he and others saw as a distraction from broader policy priorities. Ovenden argued this pattern reflects a structural problem, not just a series of isolated incidents.
The Abd El Fattah case illustrates the dynamics officials cited: detained in Egypt for more than a decade on charges including “spreading false news,” he was released in September 2024 after diplomatic lobbying and returned to the UK shortly before the coverage. Initially welcomed by the prime minister as a government priority, Abd El Fattah later faced renewed scrutiny when online posts calling for violence emerged; he has apologised for those posts. The episode prompted Sir Keir to order a review into “information failures” around the handling of the case.
Ovenden told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Whitehall meetings meant to set government priorities were frequently rerouted by other parts of the state, and that political teams were often unaware of details because those matters did not affect daily ministerial work. He framed the situation as a systematic erosion of ministers’ operational control, with legal challenges, regulators and activist networks able to interrupt or halt policy implementation.
Separately, Chris Powell — who has worked on four Labour general election campaigns and is the brother of adviser Jonathan Powell — wrote in The Guardian that Labour needs a “fundamental reset”. He warned that voters are disillusioned and that Reform UK poses an electoral threat, arguing internal changes are necessary to restore public confidence ahead of elections in 2025.
Analysis & implications
If Ovenden’s diagnosis is accepted within government, it points to a choice: preserve extensive checks that can slow action, or amend legal and procedural restraints to prioritise speed. Reducing avenues for judicial review or trimming statutory environmental obligations for certain projects would alter the balance between rights protection and executive efficiency. Such reforms could accelerate delivery of infrastructure or policy promises, but they would also prompt legal challenges and concern from civil society about weakened safeguards.
Politically, moves to curtail checks risk being portrayed by opponents as a rollback of accountability. The government would need to show narrowly targeted reforms and robust parliamentary scrutiny to avoid accusations of overreach. Conversely, failing to address perceived paralysis may fuel public frustration and feed support for rivals who pitch themselves as efficient alternatives. The interplay of public opinion, media scrutiny and court decisions will shape how far a government can shift this balance.
Institutionally, the debate highlights tensions between short electoral cycles and long‑running regulatory frameworks. Ministers seeking quick wins may chafe at processes designed to address long‑term risks. Any attempt to change those processes will require legislative time, cross‑bench engagement and likely judicial review of the changes themselves, making rapid transformation politically and legally challenging. Internationally, changes to due process or environmental obligations could affect the UK’s standing on human rights and climate commitments, attracting scrutiny from partners and watchdogs.
Comparison & data
| Date/Period | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Offensive private messages from Paul Ovenden later date to this year. |
| September 2024 | Paul Ovenden resigned as director of political strategy; Alaa Abd El Fattah released from Egyptian detention. |
| Late 2024 | Abd El Fattah arrived in the UK; subsequent controversy over past social posts. |
| May 2025 | Scheduled local elections in England and other UK areas. |
The table gives a compact timeline of the items central to recent debate. While dates and events are straightforward, their political impact will depend on how reforms are framed and whether changes to legal duties or judicial review are pursued and passed into law.
Reactions & quotes
Officials, commentators and the prime minister have all voiced perspectives that illuminate the dispute over institutional constraints.
“We’d be having long meetings on the priorities of the government and they would be railroaded by any other business into discussions about this gentleman.”
Paul Ovenden, former director of political strategy (quoted on BBC Radio 4)
“Speed and ability to get things done in Parliament.”
Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister (parliamentary Liaison Committee)
“Absolutely abhorrent”
Sir Keir Starmer, on social posts by Alaa Abd El Fattah
Unconfirmed
- Claims that specific activist organisations intentionally coordinated to block particular government policies have not been substantiated in public evidence.
- Allegations that internal ministerial meetings were systematically leaked in order to stall action remain unproven based on currently available reporting.
Bottom line
Senior figures close to the prime minister are making a public case that the state has grown in ways that hamper ministers’ ability to act quickly. The Abd El Fattah episode has become a focal point for broader complaints about processes, legal challenges and the influence of non‑governmental actors on Whitehall’s agenda.
Any attempt to reallocate power back to ministers would require legal and parliamentary change and carries trade‑offs: faster delivery versus reduced external scrutiny. The coming months — including the May 2025 local elections and internal party debates — will test whether those arguments translate into concrete reform or remain a rhetorical response to short‑term political pressure.
Sources
- BBC News — UK public broadcaster reporting on Ovenden’s comments and Abd El Fattah case (original report).
- The Times — national newspaper (Paul Ovenden opinion piece referenced by reporting).
- The Guardian — national newspaper (Chris Powell commentary cited in coverage).