## Notes from 15 September 2025 [[2025-09-14|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-09-16|Next note →]] [[Peter Hyman]] and [[Morgan Wild]]’s [[Labour Together]] paper, [A Progressive Case for State Reform](https://www.labourtogether.uk/all-reports/progressive-case-for-state-reform), is a clear and concrete statement of what centre-left state capacity could look like. They call it a “_dynamic state_.” The diagnosis is straightforward: complexity has outpaced the traditional “predict and control” civil service model, power has become over-centralized (in the UK), and a sprawling [[Institutional Paralysis|vetocracy]] slows decisions to a turtle's pace. The remedy is new agencies (now fashionably called "missions") with real autonomy and accountability (always a tricky balance, since what some call accountability others experience as red tape), a repertoire of organizational forms, fewer veto points, and a centre that does fewer things better—with “fewer but better rules.” The paper also nods to the American “abundance” bros - cutting through accumulated veto points so the government can actually build - and makes a case for [[executive decisiveness]] without lapsing into libertarianism. This connects with the cluster inside Labour now talking about growth and delivery (like the [[Labour Growth Group]] around [[Chris Curtis]]) and with UK think tanks that have converged on state capability and planning reform. A political footnote I don’t want to lose: public-sector unions are a core constituency for the centre-left almost everywhere. Any serious civil-service reform (changing incentives, paying for scarce skills, removing veto points, etc) will, at some point, press against their interests. The report is candid about institutional pathologies and even says politicians will need to “get a grip,” but it doesn’t dwell on the coalition management this implies; that’s politics, not design. It’s also good to see YIMBY logic winning minds on the centre-left. Still, asking for fewer national veto points and more devolution can be tricky: local politics can empower NIMBY vetoes, even as centralized systems sometimes deliver faster. Talk is cheap; to make this a reality will mean, one way or another, fewer procedural choke points, quicker environmental and planning approvals, and a willingness to confront “everythingsm.” There will be losers, and that needs to be part of the equation. In the end, the core point stands: only a reformed state can restore democratic trust.