New weekend reading from me - Antonia Romeo is the first Cabinet Secretary in a decade (and there have been a few) to publish her performance objectives.
Sounds a bit unremarkable, but there's more to it than meets the eye 👇
A line chart from the institute for Government showing how the size of the civil service has changed since 2009. It shrinks gradually to a minimum in 2016, but has been steadily increasing since then.
It's that time again... ONS Public Sector Employment dropped today, revealing a familiar pattern - the civil service just can't stop growing. An increase of 535 from Q3 2025 to Q4 2025 brings the total to 520,860 (FTE).
@instituteforgovernment.org.uk
PAC are however totally right to highlight the importance of the forthcoming (and much delayed) strategic workforce plan.
This should help cut spending - better planning out what your own staff will be doing should stop you reaching so frequently for external support
It's also worth noting the govt's target for cutting spending - to reduce by half by 2028/29, compared to average annual spend between 17/18 and 22/23.
PAC don't note that the benchmark includes v high spending during the pandemic - so making the target easier to reach!
Putting that aside, it's important to note that consultancy spending *is* falling.
Though much of this is down to one-off factors that can't be repeated - like DHSC's spending falling in the years following the pandemic.
But this is complicated further by consultancy spend often being bundled together with spend on other professional services - so isolating consultancy spend can be impossible, and different depts approach this differently.
So PAC are right to call for more detailed breakdowns.
This is complicated by confused definitions - or, as the Cabinet Office would say (and which has some merit), departments inconsistently classifying spending according to the same cross-govt definition.
Indeed depts annual reports and accounts, internal govt systems + private sector analysis of published invoices all capture different (tho overlapping) items of consultancy spend
PAC notes several of the issues we discussed in WM (available below) - including the worrying lack of accurate data on this.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
A hard-hitting report out today from the Public Accounts Committee on government use of external consultants.
Lots which chimes with our @instituteforgovernment.org.uk analysis in Whitehall Monitor 2026.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/12...
I wrote a piece for LBC on how proposed reforms to criminal trials actually risk making things worse, rather than better www.lbc.co.uk/article/crim...
Lots of v good points in this from @neildotobrien.bsky.social - civil service performance management is rubbish.
But important not to think that's unrecognised inside CS. It's the complaint you hear most often, at all seniorities - the problem is making fixing it a priority & sticking with it!
Worth saying that DHSC was one of the morale success stories last year - engagement went up by 5 ppt between 2023 and 2024
We've got the full picture of what happened across the main themes in the people survey here 👇
A notable increase of almost 3 percentage points in officials' satisfaction with their pay and benefits
And the fifth(!) consecutive year of falling satisfaction with 'leadership and managing change'
Extraordinary day of course for the royal family, the picture will live on for a long time. Also the sovereign is central to govt and important in many ways
But people who spend a lot of time centring the royals can get royal-pilled. This is not (a) the abdication; (b) a war; (c) the fall of a govt
A screenshot from a letter from the courts minister, Sarah Sackman MP, to the chair of the justice select committee, Andy Slaughter MP, which reads: The Institute for Government Report The Institute for Government’s Report on the court reforms referenced at the panel by Cassia Rowland is a useful contribution to the debate. However, we take issue with the report in two key respects. First, as the Department’s modelling, to be published with the Bill, will show, the IfG has understated the savings that can be achieved by the proposed reforms. This is understandable given they lack the complete data picture. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the IfG’s analysis assumes that court productivity could be restored to 2016 levels in a short space of time and that the backlog could be resolved without making significant reform. That is neither realistic nor does it account for the ways in which the system has changed over the last decade, with a backlog set to hit 100,000 open cases in a year from now. For example, Ms Rowland identified cancelled trials, resulting in wasted sitting days, as a major source of inefficiency. That reflects the workforce challenges and the lack of sufficient lawyers and judges in the system which I described above. That is a workforce issue which requires long term investment and will take years to resolve. The Government has begun to make that investment but it is not an issue which can be addressed in the short term.
Our analysis of the likely impact of the gov’s jury trial reforms has got some attention! This is the courts minister's response to the justice select committee asking about my figures. Here’s why I don’t think it’s a fair assessment: (report here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...)
New piece from @hannahkeenan.bsky.social, @hcdunlop.bsky.social and me.
Our take on the task facing the new cabinet secretary 👇
...and the senior figure in No10 already exists - it's the chief of staff (political) and PPS (civil service). Which works pretty well as is.
An old debate, but this is (mostly) the right answer - current job is way too big for one person.
But 'chief advisor' bit is confused. The cab sec part of the job *is* being principal policy adviser to the PM...
Romeo was always the bold choice and is more likely than Wormald to drive the change the civil service needs.
But after recent briefing she's appointed under a bit of a cloud. Not knowing where that will go makes this feel risky - and Starmer *really* can't afford another appointment going south
That really was an expedited process
Antonia Romeo appointed as cabinet secretary - @alexgathomas.bsky.social and I wrote last week about the challenges ahead for her and what lessons need to be taken from Wormald's tenure: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/next...
So the new cabinet secretary will indeed be Antonia Romeo
Here’s what we think she needs to prioritise
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/next...
Great piece from @hannahkeenan.bsky.social on the continually failing structures at the centre of government.
And why they’re (partly) to blame for governments cycling ever faster through cabinet secretaries and other key appointments
The workload facing MPs and their staff is growing, in ways that aren't visible to the public: casework and the inbox.
For @thehousemag.bsky.social, I delved into what the workload looks like, why it's growing, and what this means for how MPs can balance the different aspects of their role
(As a side note - there was a similar question around Mark Sedwill's departure - the letter on that is here):
www.gov.uk/government/p...
So I don't think this should be seen as officials trying to block the payment, or 'refusing to sign off' as such.
Directions are a perfectly normal and healthy part of government - and should be seen as such!
2) A payment above the contractual minimum might not be considered value for money.
This is *not* Little saying she disagrees with the payout, or that it doesn't constitute value for money. Just that she isn't really in a position to judge whether it does.
And Starmer directed her to proceed.
In her request for a direction, Little noted that:
1) Wormald is her line manager - so her authorising the extra severance for him could constitute a conflict of interest. The precedent is that, as a result, in cases like this the PM decides on any extra payment
...
In the Wormald case, clearly he's contractually entitled to severance pay. But it seems that, because his departure was agreed very hastily, there was a proposal to give him more than the contractual minimum. Which seems fair!