Have written about how the below is one symptom of a really bad set-up at the centre of government. It makes sense that in the moment prime ministers keep trying to find a different person to do various jobs, but the problem is also a structural one, and the dysfunctional structure keeps on winning
I spoke at the House of Lords Justice & Home Affairs Committee yesterday, on behalf of @instituteforgovernment.org.uk, on immigration, citizenship and integration. Thanks to @jlowen.bsky.social, @cassiarowland.bsky.social and @hcdunlop.bsky.social for help on prep!
Session here: tinyurl.com/372h6jdk
📢NEW REPORT📢
Every year @instituteforgovernment.org.uk sets out the latest on the civil service - size, professions, pay, morale. You name it, we analyse it. This year's report is out today.
If you're interested in state capacity, you should be interested in what's happening in the civil service. 🧵
Delighted that Wes Streeting will be kicking off our Government 2026 conference - bright and early tomorrow ⬇️
Other speakers through the day include Mel Stride, Darren Jones, Louise Casey, Andy Burnham, Michael Gove, Ed Balls, Ayesha Hazarika and many more
Useful report and thread. These problems with policy making are widespread and go well beyond early years.
A case study well worth noting, with a recurrent theme that policy targeting is crude - due to: political incentives; easy levers not aligning with need; markets requiring careful stewardship; central decision-making being in tension with local sensitivity. Reads across to many other policy fields!
This is the next instalment of our 'policymaking for left behind groups' series - check out the rest of the series on our webpage here: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/top...
Huge thanks from @nehaldavison.bsky.social and I to everyone who helped us with this report, including @emma-conway.bsky.social @vimbai-dzimwasha.bsky.social @njdavies.bsky.social @alexgathomas.bsky.social @drhannahwhite.bsky.social Will, David, Rowena, and our brilliant reviewers and interviewees.
The report concludes with our take on how Labour performs against these five policy making blind spots, and what this means for the opportunity mission. Check that out on page 30 of the report here: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
Screenshot of a report, which reads: Both sides of this debate can reasonably argue that they are right. As former DfE permanent secretary David Bell notes, there is “naivety on the part of local actors… not recognising there must be some kind of metric. And equally naivety on behalf of central government that… your single metric can encapsulate everything you need to know.” The key issue is not that this tension exists, but how central government navigates it to design and deliver effective policy, particularly given it needs trust and buy-in from front-line services to deliver on its objectives.
On that tension - see this quote from former DfE perm sec David Bell which I thought captures the issue well:
- It can crowd out tailored, locally rooted initiatives that may be more effective in shifting the dial for left-behind groups.
- There's a disconnect with those delivering on the front line (who can see CG policy as too blunt/detached from families' realities) - which also makes delivery harder.
5. Central government tends to take a centralised, standardised and universal approach to policy making. In many ways this is a pragmatic response to the constraints and accountability structures policy makers operate in. But this approach has trade-offs...
![A screenshot of the report. Text reads: But this approach has not yet produced the step change the government promised. The
2025 spending review still lacked any cross-departmental budgets. Officials report that, while meetings between departments have become more common, meaningful joint working remains slow and elusive. Even when two departments are implementing the same policy, joining up operationally can be difficult. As one official put it to us:
“In the early days of the opportunity mission, there was lots of energy around government [put into cross-government working]. Now, we are teetering on the edge of paralysis in terms of bureaucracy. Just setting up the missions and trying to get departments working in a certain way has been tough for Whitehall.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:e6c4s65zr555jl25zuoerl4g/bafkreih6h3smri4j7qa4lfllfio3qcwheua6scu5cfi2uyzsx6uhmp53zi)
A screenshot of the report. Text reads: But this approach has not yet produced the step change the government promised. The 2025 spending review still lacked any cross-departmental budgets. Officials report that, while meetings between departments have become more common, meaningful joint working remains slow and elusive. Even when two departments are implementing the same policy, joining up operationally can be difficult. As one official put it to us: “In the early days of the opportunity mission, there was lots of energy around government [put into cross-government working]. Now, we are teetering on the edge of paralysis in terms of bureaucracy. Just setting up the missions and trying to get departments working in a certain way has been tough for Whitehall.”
4. The age-old problem of cross-government coordination. The drivers of EY inequalities are complex and sit across government - with no clear accountability structures for incentivising depts (other than DfE) to address them. One official told us this remains true under the opportunity mission:
3. The government funds a large share of EY provision but has not stewarded the childcare market well enough to deliver quality and inclusive access.
This has fostered market failures which deepen inequalities: e.g. patchy provision (especially for SEND), poor quality, fewer small providers.
2. The primary focus of early years policy has been to expand childcare entitlements.
Experts told us that the focus on parental employment has left less funding for other early years policy objectives, including improving EY quality and family services - both important for narrowing inequalities.
1. There's little political incentive to prioritise disadvantaged children.
This comes from:
- short-termism
- fiscal pressures
- limited pressure on ministers from the public, who are often unaware of the extent of inequalities or see it as a problem for individuals/parents, rather than the state.
NEW report from @nehaldavison.bsky.social and I.
Why have successive governments failed to tackle persistent inequalities in early years outcomes?
We set out 5 systemic policy making failures that lead to some children being 'left behind'.
🧵⬇️
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
New comment | Three things the government needs to do to make the child poverty strategy work
The child poverty strategy is a concrete shift towards prevention but ministers must take action to implement it effectively.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/chil...
The child poverty strategy represents a concrete shift to prevention, but as always, the devil is in the detail.
@sophiemetcalfe.bsky.social and I go into that detail in our new comment:
- On coordinating multiple departments
- Ensuring local partners have the right support
- Monitoring progress
NEW IfG verdict on the child poverty strategy from me and @amberdellar.bsky.social
A critical package for the govt, but it needs:
- stronger powers/accountability in DWP to lead it
- much more robust support for LAs
- earlier monitoring/evaluation
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/chil...
I wrote for @theobserveruk.bsky.social on the special needs problem highlighted by the budget and the big political battle over it coming next year.
share.google/kTTENR1gX4Y4...
In a new departure, we @instituteforgovernment.org.uk are going to be live blogging the Budget all through tomorrow. The live blog is now live and we will be sharing our pre-Budget thoughts there, followed by responses once we hear the CX's speech www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/live-blog/au...
Very excited to see my PhD research referenced in this @newstatesman1913.bsky.social piece
www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...
NEW REPORT | The opportunity gap facing boys from low-income families at age 5 and beyond
Early attainment gaps mean some boys don't just start behind, they stay behind. @sophiemetcalfe.bsky.social @nehaldavison.bsky.social
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
As the covid inquiry gears up for Module 9 on economic policy, @gemmatetlow.bsky.social and I have a new @ukri.org-funded @instituteforgovernment.org.uk report out on Epi-econ modelling for pandemics. We set out why govt needs to invest now 1/🧵
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
Very important new report from @instituteforgovernment.org.uk highlighting the challenges facing boys from low-income families.
The research unpacks the reasons why they fall so far behind, and reiterates the need for action to tackle gaps in outcomes for this group ⤵️
www.tes.com/magazine/new...
Some disastrous numbers in this new IfG report. Less than half - half - of boys eligible for free school meals meet basic standards of early-years development.
Fascinating new report from my colleagues on how boys from low-income families are let down
Thanks Martin - yes absolutely, these are very persistent trends and the policymaking failures we point to are deeply engrained. We have a report out in a few weeks that digs into this - also depressing I won't lie, but points to some new ways of working that show promise (e.g. test learn and grow).
Really excited to share this new report today by me & @sophiemetcalfe.bsky.social on the opportunity gap facing boys from low-income families at age 5 and beyond.
Key findings 👇
