It's now more than one year since Labour came to power, promising to use its five missions to “completely transform government and move away from sticking-plaster politics”. Has the government become mission-oriented? It depends who you ask.
Many officials CSW has spoken to – including those in very senior positions – say the missions have had no discernible impact on their professional lives. One even said they would struggle to keep a straight face if asked to talk about the missions in public. Others, however, have waxed lyrical in public and in private about the energy behind the agenda and how it is opening doors to collaboration in new and meaningful ways. No one could be more energetic when describing this way of working than Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould, or indeed the godmother of the mission-based approach Mariana Mazzucato.
Why, then, such a discrepancy in attitude? One top official we asked said it wasn’t surprising. People approach change in different ways. Some with Pollyanna-ish optimism, some with Eeyore-like cynicism.
Officials have seen so many promises of radical public service reform over the years – and so much ministerial churn – that it’s hard to blame the Eeyores. (Indeed, for all of Gould’s enthusiasm for missions, what happens if and when she’s promoted out of the Cabinet Office? It’s hard to imagine her successor will bring as much passion to the agenda.)
If opinions vary, what does the evidence tell us? In the lead-up to SR25, CSW and other Whitehall-watchers had been saying that the proof of the mission-pudding would be in the Spending Review.
During that same period, chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones told the Institute for Government he was taking a radical new approach, with multilateral negotiations and even bids from mission groups. Although when CSW asked him – after his speech at the IfG – whether this meant we could expect mission-based shared budget allocations, he demurred that departmental allocations would take priority.
In the end, the spending allocations and final document did not put mission-based working front and centre, though both had clearly been influenced by the five missions – see for example the priority given to health and energy investments, for example.
And, if you sniff closely – perhaps charitably – you can scent other small and potentially important changes. The Transformation Fund is an exciting mechanism to invest in reform, and several allocations within it will support missions or new ways of working.
The principles of public service reform which the Spending Review document sets out – early intervention, integration and devolution – are also consistent with mission-based working, as is the funding for a “test, learn and grow” approach.
A few days after the Spending Review, the Cabinet Office announced plans to launch place-based “testbeds” which would drive the opportunity, health and growth missions in Sheffield, Leeds and Darlington.
With an explicit aim of “rewiring the state from the ground up”, these testbeds and SR25 at large suggest a government that wants to drive change iteratively and in a decentralised way, rather than through overarching structural changes.
Is that a bad thing? Perhaps not – structural reform can become a focus in itself, while demonstrating change through a place-based or “test and learn” approach can be powerful if done well.
The problem is that these changes are really only discernible to knowledgeable public service reform enthusiasts. They may reap rewards in time, but they don’t make for an easy narrative about how this government is doing things differently. And, absent tangible results that alleviate some of the massive challenges that government is facing, it will make it difficult for Labour to tell a story about its approach to power that will resonate with citizens.
This column first appeared in the summer 2025 edition of the Civil Service World Magazine, which you can read here