There’s still costs involved in name change as MoG changes go.

And as I said it seems a bit mad to name Dept after an aspirational, outcome-based slogan.

Not least because of problems govts have in linking outcome aspirations from manifesto to delivery in govt…

The problem is, as Gemma Tetlow pointed out, while phrase allows govt to “convince swathes of the electorate that they will be the beneficiaries”

It also means swathes of population thinking they WILL be beneficiaries. (And the Con MPs who now rep them)

instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/boris-joh…

But then to add to it all, PM has brought Andy Haldane into cabinet office to ‘define’ levelling up.

(Reporting to both Gove and PM)

Great in terms of someone putting more flesh on this, confusing in terms of how agenda will be managed.

But that is PM’s style.

As Gemma also pointed out, one of the problems with phrases like this is that, having seen it as big priority undefined for govt, depts would stick the phrase on anything that moves.

Would like to see how often it features in SR subs…. 👀

Feels like, seeing Raab get DPM tag, Gove has ensured he gets the big policy title. Also nicking from Sunak something HMT would feel is their domain. Gives Gove the chance to foray into lots of different policy areas.

Will be interesting to see how this changes cab committees.

Dr Catherine Haddon Isn't the department the successor of Prescott's ODPM?

@LWpaulbivand Yes in essence. Which is another reason why it is fascinating.

But then ODPM was itself a change from DETR which split off to Defra and DfT.