## Notes from 11 April 2025 [[2025-04-10|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-04-12|Next note →]] I’ve just read the [[Institute for Government (IfG)]]’s piece, “['Whitehall reform’ needs a more coherent plan to succeed](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/whitehall-reform-needs-coherent-plan-succeed)” by Alex Thomas and Matthew Gill, and it really got me thinking. Their analysis of what does (and doesn’t!) count as _civil service reform_ is spot on. They underline something that seems obvious but gets overlooked all the time: changing a policy stance isn’t automatically “reform,” it’s a policy decision. What's even more striking to me is that while the UK has a strong record of [great diagnostics and strategy](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-digital-government-review) for government digital transformation, this time there is no equivalent, joined-up [strategy (not "planning")](https://vaughntan.org/efficiencytrap) for the civil service itself. As always, Alex Thomas raises points that are worth paying close attention to, especially around the political nature of reform. Sometimes the hardest part isn’t getting everyone on board; it’s being ready to accept the trade-offs and say “no” to many interests. Reform always means shaking up the status quo, and there’s no escaping that political dimension. All in all, the article reminded me how crucial it is to distinguish genuine civil service reform from piecemeal fixes.