Introduction

Nine months have passed since the general election. A new PM and a new generation of ministers have settled into post. They have had time to assess the legacy from the last administration and familiarise themselves with the ongoing work of every department. Delivery of the programmes on which they will be judged has now begun.

Senior ministers including the PM, the Chancellor, and the Minister with responsibility for civil service reform have declared the bold and ambitious intent to do government differently. We think these plans must include a deep and wide commitment to relational practice. In this pair of blogs we dig into the practicalities. First, here, in part one of the series, we hear from Paul Morrison, a senior official writing in a personal capacity. In part two, our own Rich Bell shares how a drive to promote relational practice could boost mission-based government.

Paul Morrison is a civil servant with nearly 30 years of experience. He began in the Home Office as an Administrative Officer and has since spent time in a range of operational and policy roles across several departments. This includes Head of the Ukraine Humanitarian Task Force, Director of the multi-departmental Directorate for Resettlement, Asylum Support and Integration, Head of Counter Terrorism in the Foreign Office, and Director of Prevent in the Home Office – all roles which involved the whole of society in dealing with complex challenges. He is currently the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, an arms length body of the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. This blog represents his personal reflections.

Public policy in the UK has long been built on a model of structured institutions, defined roles, and clear lines of accountability. Government has traditionally operated as an architect – designing systems, setting rules, and allocating resources – while individuals and organisations function within that framework. But society is not a static structure; it is a shifting web of relationships. 

This matters because the challenges we now face – whether the affordability of housing, pressures on the NHS, economic stagnation, or the erosion of trust in institutions – are not discrete, technical problems that can be solved within departmental boundaries. They are complex, interdependent, and require responses that reflect how people actually live their lives, rather than how government happens to be structured.

If we are serious about making policy more effective, we need to shift our focus. Instead of thinking of society as something that government administers, we need to see it as something that emerges from the relationships between people, institutions, businesses, and services. And if society is those relationships, then policymaking must focus on how those relationships function – how they can be strengthened, aligned, and made to work better in the public interest.

This is not a call for vague community engagement or participatory exercises that have little impact. It is about designing policy in a way that recognises that change happens through networks of people and organisations, not simply through issuing directives.

1. Policy as relationship management, not just rule-making

Government has traditionally seen its role as setting rules and distributing resources, assuming that the right structures will deliver good outcomes. But if the real drivers of change are the relationships between different actors in society, then the role of government is not just to enforce order but to create the conditions in which people and institutions can collaborate effectively.

For example, in education policy, government does not simply control budgets and set national standards. What really determines outcomes is the quality of relationships – between schools and families, between teachers and local businesses, between education providers and employers. If government wants to drive improvements, it must think about how to strengthen these networks, not just how to regulate or fund them.

2. Breaking down silos

Policy is still made largely within departmental structures, as though each policy area operates independently. But every major social and economic issue is interwoven with others. We know that poor housing leads to worse health outcomes, that transport determines access to jobs, that educational attainment affects regional economic growth.

Yet government remains structured in ways that make it difficult to respond to these linkages. Policies are developed within departments, funding is allocated in silos, and services are designed around organisational convenience rather than public need. The result is inefficiency, duplication, and failure to address root causes.

A relational approach to policy would focus on these interconnections. It would mean, for example, designing housing, transport, and employment policy in a coordinated way, rather than treating each as a separate issue. It would mean removing bureaucratic barriers that prevent local authorities, the NHS, and social services from working together effectively.

3. Adaptive policies for a changing world: moving at the speed of trust

Traditional policymaking has often assumed that once a policy is designed and implemented, it will remain effective with only occasional adjustments. But the pace of change today means that rigid, long-term plans quickly become obsolete.

This is not just about responsiveness – it is about designing public services in ways that foster productive relationships from the outset. As Hilary Cottam has argued, public servants need to ‘move at the speed of trust,’ particularly when working with people with complex needs. This means frontline services must have the flexibility to adapt, not just in response to policy changes, but in response to the people they serve.

Rather than treating public service delivery as the final step in a process, we should see it as an evolving relationship. This means embedding mechanisms for ongoing evaluation, giving frontline services greater discretion to adapt to local circumstances and tailor approaches to individual needs, and ensuring that feedback from the public and service providers is not just collected but acted upon.

4. People as active participants, not just recipients

Public services are often designed for people rather than with them. This results in policies that may look coherent on paper but do not reflect how people actually experience government.

A relational approach recognises that good policymaking does not just deliver services – it builds trust, engagement, and cooperation. This means involving citizens meaningfully in shaping policies that affect them, not through tokenistic consultations but through mechanisms that give them real influence. 

One emerging example is the new Plan for Neighbourhoods (or revamped Plan for Towns), which proposes citizen-led Neighbourhood Boards to make funding decisions alongside local authorities. If implemented well, this could be a model of participative policymaking – one where communities are not merely consulted but are actively involved in shaping local investment and services.

This approach is not about outsourcing government’s responsibilities; it is about ensuring that policies are rooted in lived reality rather than in abstract assumptions.

5. Resilience through decentralisation

Many of the most effective responses to crises – whether the COVID-19 pandemic, economic shocks, or extreme weather events – have not come from central government alone but from a combination of local government, businesses, charities, and community networks. The ability to respond quickly and effectively often depends on decision-making being as close as possible to the people affected.

Yet too many decisions are still made centrally, with local authorities and frontline services constrained by rigid funding rules and bureaucratic oversight. If we want a more resilient society, government must enable local institutions to take more responsibility and act with greater flexibility.

This does not mean simply devolving power for the sake of it; it means designing systems that allow decision-making to happen at the right level. A truly relational approach to policymaking would ensure that local institutions are not just delivery mechanisms but active agents in shaping solutions.

A necessary shift in thinking

This is not about rejecting the role of government or dismissing traditional policy tools. It is about recognising that policymaking needs to evolve. The problems we face today do not fit neatly into departmental structures, and they cannot be solved by command-and-control mechanisms alone.

This is not an abstract academic argument. It is a practical approach to making policy more effective in a world where complexity, interconnection, and rapid change are the defining challenges of our time. The civil service prides itself on adaptability and pragmatism. This is the next step in making policy that actually works.

Read part two of this blog series, Letting the nation in: How a drive to promote relational practice could boost mission-based government, by Rich Bell. Please share any thoughts or questions in the comments, or message david@relationshipsproject.org.