It's unclear how Starmer wants to sharpen Whitehall

Good morning. From missions to milestones: Keir Starmer has refined his government's focus towards six new (or newer) goals. He also used his speech yesterday to argue that the very apparatus of Whitehall must be reformed to deliver this agenda. My thoughts on this in today's newsletter.

The joy of six

My first thought on Keir Starmer's new milestones is they look incredibly expensive:

• Raising living standards in all parts of the UK, as part of the Government's aim to generate the highest sustained economic growth in the G7.

• Build 1.5 million homes in England

• A police officer appointed for every ward in England and Wales, with the recruitment of 13,000 additional officers, police community support officers and special constables

• End hospital backlogs to meet NHS target of 92 per cent of patients in England waiting no more than 18 weeks for elective treatment

• Increase the proportion of five-year-olds in England who are 'ready to learn' when they start school, to a record high of 75 per cent

• Ensure “at least 95 percent low-carbon production by 2030” (this dilutes a pre-election commitment that the UK would “run 100% on cheap, clean electricity” by that year)

Between them, it is difficult to see how these goals could be achieved without further tax increases or deeper cuts in spending ministries whose efforts are not focused on “key milestones”, or a bit of both.

I had forgotten until Lucy mentioned it on the Political Solution Podcast this week, in addition to next year's comprehensive spending review, the strategic defense review is due to be completed. It is highly likely that the review will conclude that there is a need to increase defense spending, which will also put additional pressure on the government's spending plans. Negotiations over the overall spending review, which will form much of the backdrop to the first half of 2025, could quickly become quite acrimonious.

My second thought is that what is missing here is a comprehensive theory of change. Starmer says Whitehall must reform and improve to achieve his plan. That's fine, but essentially, if you want to change the way a system works, you have to change the incentives with which it works. What incentives does Starmer think need to be changed to make the civil service work better? What governance method or approach to modernizing public services does it have?

When Tony Blair made his first major speech on public sector reform in 1999, we now remember that he bore the “scars”. [his] return” after two years of attempts to reform the UK's public services – likewise, the real meaning of the term “reform” was not clear. In fact, in some media, it wasn't even the main story of the speech. Here is our 1999 report:

We now think of something very specific when we think of “Blairist” public sector reform: the choice and competition that raise standards, rankings, essentially what underpinned the changes driven by Alan Milburn, Patricia Hewitt, Andrew Adonis, James Purnell. but also Michael Gove.

But that wasn't really what Blair did at that time in 1999. Indeed, when a few days later the FT announced (rightly) that Milburn would be appointed Health Secretary, that was his success in the dismantling of the NHS internal market introduced by Ken Clarke. who characterized him as a reformer:

Ultimately, what we now call the “Blairist” reforms were much more like the changes implemented by Clarke as Health Secretary, and by various departments under John Major, than those of the 1997 period. -1999.

It is possible that in the same way, we come back to the different analyses… like my column in today's paper, for example, saying: “Um, where's the vision, Keir?” – like those who sorely forgot that this was the first step in what we would come to recognize as a “Starmerian” approach to public service and Whitehall reform. Just as Blair's speech about “scars on my back” now sounds much less like a clap of thunder out of nowhere, we can see this speech as the start of something.

But one of the reasons the Blairites had time to find their feet and develop a distinctive style is that they benefited from Major's benign fiscal legacy, a favorable geopolitical context and a large economy. . Starmer has none of these advantages and may not have the flexibility or room to maneuver that Blair may have enjoyed to develop a proper theory on how to improve public services.

Now try this

This week, I mainly listened John Harle playing Glazounov's saxophone concerto while writing my column. I saw Jess Gillam perform it last weekend alongside the London Philharmonia – she was fantastic.

However you spend it, have a wonderful weekend.

In the news today

• Gong Watch | Labor London Mayor Sadiq Khan must receive a knighthood in the New Year honors list, according to people briefed on the document. They said the chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, Emily Thornberry, a long-serving Labor MP whom Keir Starmer excluded from his front office team when he entered government, should be given the title lady, alongside Patricia Hewitt.

• Add up the IHT | The 40 biggest tax estates in the UK paid on average £9.2 million in inheritance tax in 2021-22, according to figures published under the Freedom of Information Act, seen by the FT.

• I Thames — Me Non Plus | Thames Water received an offer from Covalis Capital for French company Suez flown in to help deal with a breakup of the UK's largest water utility before listing it on the stock market.

• Getting out of the “hot bath of empty promises” | Keir Starmer told the BBC it's not his “plan” further tax increases before the next election – but says he cannot rule them out in the event of “unforeseen” circumstances.