## Notes from 11 March 2026 [[2026-03-10|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-03-12|Next note →]] In a recent post, [[Peter Hyman]] [argued that Keir Starmer should abolish the Cabinet Secretary role entirely](https://peterhyman21.substack.com/p/8-reasons-why-the-cabinet-secretary). Hyman characterizes the position as a confused amalgam of crisis management, prime ministerial advisory duties, and civil service leadership. ## What is the [[UK Cabinet Office]]? The Cabinet Office serves as the “nerve center” of UK government operations—a central hub that integrates three distinct responsibilities: **1. Prime Ministerial coordination:** This machinery helps the Prime Minister synchronize policy, communications, and strategy across government departments. This function parallels the **White House West Wing**, though the UK version is staffed primarily by permanent civil servants rather than political appointees. **2. Cross-government management and standards:** This function resembles the management portfolio of the **[[US Office of Personnel Management (OPM)]]**, establishing government-wide standards for HR, digital infrastructure, and procurement. However, the analogy breaks down on budget control: in the UK, **HM Treasury** (the Exchequer) leads fiscal policy and spending control, whereas OMB is central to assembling the President’s budget proposal in the US system. **3. System leadership (the “Head of the Civil Service”):** Each government department has its own **Permanent Secretary**—the most senior career official—who advises the minister and serves as the **Accounting Officer**, meaning they are personally and legally accountable to Parliament for that department’s use of public money. This matters because the **Cabinet Secretary** (the top civil servant and secretary to Cabinet) has **often** also been appointed **Head of the Civil Service**—the professional leader of the civil service (500,000+ officials)—though the two roles are not permanently fused. This has no direct US equivalent; the closest comparison might be if the **Director of the OPM** held significantly expanded authority. In that “system leadership” capacity, the center can influence: - **Senior appointments:** chairing or shaping selection processes for Permanent Secretary roles. - **Professional standards:** setting ethics codes and capability frameworks across the civil service. - **Strategic coordination:** convening Permanent Secretaries to align on cross-government initiatives. - **Institutional voice:** representing civil service concerns to the Prime Minister. ## Dismantling the “triple hat” Hyman contends that bundling Cabinet operations, PM advisory, and civil service leadership **allows** crisis management to crowd out strategic thinking. He proposes disaggregating these into four specialized roles: - **Cabinet Coordinator:** a technical position managing agendas and committee workflows. - **PM’s Chief of Staff:** a senior figure focused on advancing the Prime Minister’s policy agenda. - **Chief Executive of the Civil Service:** a reform leader, ideally an **outsider**, tasked with modernizing capability and breaking a culture of “defensibility.” - **Head of Mission Government:** a leader with the authority to bypass departmental silos (including Accounting Officer bottlenecks) to deliver on urgent priorities like housing. ## The Maude proposal The **[[Public Sector Reform in the UK#The Maude Review (2023)|Maude Review]]** argues that the UK’s “center” is fundamentally broken because it lacks the authority to enforce efficiency. It proposes creating: - **The Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (OPMC):** a direct merger of the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Secretariat. This would be led by a **Cabinet Secretary** focused strictly on serving as the PM’s strategic adviser, removed from day-to-day administrative management. - **The Office of Budget and Management (OBM):** Maude proposes moving **public spending** functions out of the Treasury and merging them with the Cabinet Office’s management functions (IT, HR, procurement, etc.). This would create a strong center that controls both policy standards and budget execution. - **A full-time Head of the Civil Service (HoCS):** this person would sit inside the OBM and hold overall responsibility for system leadership in civil service reform. By sitting within the OBM, the HoCS would have the budgetary leverage to compel departmental Permanent Secretaries to modernize, rather than merely requesting their cooperation.