Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Institute for Government think-tank
If Keir Starmer’s back-story is now reduced to the words “toolmaker” and “pebble-dash”, then his forward prospectus is summed up in the promise to lead a “mission-driven government”. That phrase has been around for 18 months. Since then, the missions have morphed slightly but remained pretty much intact: growth, the NHS, clean energy, safer streets and opportunity. The aim is to break down internal silos inside government and deliver lasting “change” — the Labour slogan.
We recently gained a bit more insight into how those missions might translate into government: an overarching committee, chaired by the PM with roles for deputy PM Angela Rayner and probable chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden; mission boards — with Starmer again in the chair; a role for experienced outsiders to share their expertise; a reorientation of the Treasury towards growth and investment.
So far, so good. The fact that Starmer recognises that, if he becomes prime minister, he has to put his weight and authority behind the missions is the right starting point. The early incarnations of the New Labour delivery unit worked because Tony Blair made time in his diary for monthly stocktakes. A key question, though, is whether Starmer can maintain that focus as his agenda and diary are blown off course by events. He will need a trusty enforcer to speak for him when other priorities distract.
Second, if this is to work, he needs to ensure the Reeves-led Treasury is a partner not an obstacle. The first test of the missions will come in the spending review. In the past, cross-cutting objectives have suffered when they have had to piece together budgets from departmental crumbs. These missions either need their own budgets to make clear their precedence or to feature as a priority in each allocation. If there are ringfenced mission budgets, Starmer could put one secretary of state and one official in charge of them.
Third, there needs to be a plan for each mission — to take it from being manifesto words into something people can act on. That requires clarity about short-term and long-term objectives, critical stepping stones and an understanding of potential blockages in the system. That is where the proposal to involve outsiders can really help — particularly if it means that those who will have to make changes can be involved at the start — rather than simply be on the receiving end of a set of Whitehall instructions. It also means being ready to change tack when something that looks promising hits a brick wall.
But fourth, people inside government need to be convinced that helping deliver the new government’s missions is critical to their success.
The missions as currently set out are not as cross-cutting as Labour likes to present them — or as they could have been. The health mission is essentially an NHS mission rather than about addressing health inequalities or making the UK fitter. The climate mission focuses on energy decarbonisation to “accelerate to net zero” rather than on the wider changes needed to get there, with little focus on climate change adaptation or more general environmental improvement. That means there is less requirement for collaboration — but there is also less for departments beyond the leads to feel enthused about.
If Labour really wants to break Whitehall out of its departmental boxes, it needs to engender a big culture change: to persuade secretaries of state across government to see their departments as contributors to the success of their colleagues; to persuade the civil servants to see their role not as defending departmental turf (and budgets) but as using their knowledge and insights to help others achieve their goals.
When that becomes as natural a reflex as defensiveness is now, mission-driven government will have become more than a catchphrase.