## Notes from 09 August 2025 [[2025-08-08|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-08-10|Next note →]] The UK Cabinet Office has [announced](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/internship-scheme-to-get-more-working-class-students-into-civil-service) that one of the Civil Service’s flagship summer internship programes will now be [reserved for students from lower-income backgrounds](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ez3v9v8jqo). It’s a short placement (two months, about 200 undergraduates) but its intent is to chip away at a well-documented problem: the Civil Service recruits working-class talent far less successfully than it should, and even when it does, those recruits tend to stall before reaching senior ranks. The political context is delicate. Ethnic and gender diversity remain heavily contested topics; by focusing on socio-economic background, the government is treading on ground that is both less visible and less polarized, but still contentious enough to attract attacks from Conservative leadership and [right-leaning think tanks](https://www.cityam.com/debate-is-the-civil-services-working-class-internship-scheme-a-step-forward/). The scheme offers paid roles, mentoring from current Fast Streamers, and fast-track consideration for those applying to the Fast Stream post-graduation. Yet, when set against the Social Mobility Commission’s _[Navigating the Labyrinth](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60a4eb62d3bf7f288c716097/SMC-NavigatingtheLabyrinth.pdf)_ report and its own [Action Plan from 2021](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/navigating-the-labyrinth/action-plan-how-to-improve-socio-economic-progression-within-the-civil-service), the move feels small... useful but not transformative. The “labyrinth” metaphor in that report captured the knotty network of informal codes, elite-leaning mentoring relationships, London-centric career ladders, and cultural expectations (“studied neutrality”) that advantage those from privileged backgrounds. The Action Plan outlined systemic fixes, from transparent promotion rules and equalized access to “accelerator” roles, to regional relocation of senior posts and legal protection for socio-economic background... but implementation has been piecemeal. A short internship programe, while welcome, is more symbolic gesture than structural repair. France, in contrast, has been running a more comprehensive and sustained approach for years under the **[Public Service Talents Plan](https://www.fonction-publique.gouv.fr/devenir-agent-public/le-plan-talents-du-service-public-des-mesures-concretes-et-ambitieuses-pour-les-jeunes)**. The French model targets the full pipeline: outreach to middle and high school students in disadvantaged or rural areas (the _Cordées du service public_), fully funded preparatory courses (_Prépas Talents_) for competitive exams, a reserved-places system (_Concours Talents_) for elite public service schools, and strong mentoring requirements for senior civil servants. The scheme couples cultural outreach with tangible financial support (€4,000 annual grants, housing/meals assistance), directly addressing both the _self-censorship_ that keeps many from applying and the material barriers that hinder preparation. Reserved competition slots (set at 15%) go beyond symbolic encouragement and alter the odds in concrete terms. From a brazilian perspective, the absence of equivalent longitudinal research on class and career progression in the public service makes it difficult to map barriers with the same clarity seen in the UK. Debates on diversity tend to prioritize race and gender (rightly in many respects) but the social class dimension often remains submerged. There are early signs of policy experimentation, such as the proposed _Concurso Nacional Unificado_, which could open doors for nationwide recruitment outside traditional hubs, but without targeted socio-economic measures or a data-driven reform plan, outcomes may default to reinforcing existing inequalities.