Trust in government fell by 8 percentage points between 2021-2023 to just 27%, well below the OECD average of 39%. Peel understood that where distrust takes root, the actions of those in power become “honest and well-intentioned as they may be – nearly useless.”
While future progress depends upon effectively utilising AI and new technologies, the largest hurdles are not technical, but interpersonal. The state must prioritise building trust before effectively tackling ailing productivity, tightening fiscal constraints, and an increasingly unpredictable international climate.
Our antithesis is the ‘Dumber State’: a cumbersome, reactive bureaucracy unwilling or unable to engage effectively with the public. Trust diminishes, replaced with an understandable urge to strip the state bare – Javier Milei in Argentina and DOGE in the United States being prime examples.
Policymakers must be reminded that a smaller state is not inherently better. Proponents of the Mounjaro Doctrine — where success is measured by rapid weight loss through fewer staff and smaller budgets — cannot differentiate between the fat, muscle, and sinews of a functioning government. An emaciated state will invariably gorge upon new bodies and grants to regain what it so frivolously discarded. A Smarter State will not be infallible or without waste, but in time it should be more able to distinguish between what is working, what is necessary, and what is not.
A Smarter State is thus a master communicator, effectively conveying its intentions and actively seeking to understand public sentiment. However, the modern era has radically transformed the way we process information. We are exposed 24/7, globally, to negative and embellished narratives that effortlessly capture our attention. A 2024 IPSOS poll found that 87% of respondents were concerned about disinformation online, and that the majority of them now use social media as their primary source of news.
This vacuum of state authority is not theoretical; it was the driving force behind the outrage that delivered the 2024 general election. Misinformation sticks not because of public ignorance, but because in the absence of a clear, trusted voice, citizens are left to find sanity and coherence wherever they can. The limited efficacy of legislative solutions, such as the Online Safety Act, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding: the information war cannot simply be regulated, it must be actively and directly engaged.
The abolition of the Central Office of Information (COI) in 2011 left Britain without the necessary infrastructure to communicate at scale and with clarity of purpose. Rebuilding this capability through a new Ministry of Public Engagement (MPE) would create a two-way interface between the state and its citizens. It would house the state’s polling and data analysis capabilities, coordinate public information and research, and pioneer new deliberative forums. Crucially, it must be accompanied by a strengthening of OFCOM’s regulatory powers, expanding oversight to enforce a clear Public Communications Code on its output.
While a majority (55%) trust the civil service, the Ipsos Veracity Index shows trust in politicians has collapsed to a meagre 9%. The diagnosis is definitive: the crisis of faith in the British state is not primarily administrative, but political, and to focus on bureaucratic technicalities alone is pointless. The challenge is to build new state infrastructure specifically designed to restore public confidence.
This is the core purpose of a Ministry of Public Engagement (MPE): to deploy the state’s competent machinery, creating new dialogues and co-designing public services with citizens; thereby giving them a tangible stake in the nation’s governance beyond the ballot box.
Government is about people. Retaining top talent remains a key challenge, but equally important is location. London still hosts 107,105 civil servants, and a significantly higher proportion of senior staff (figure). An accelerated program of relocating central offices is essential to demonstrate that regions outside London form an integral part of future solutions.
Additionally, a Smarter State never forgets the importance of person-to-person interaction. AI Chatbots are an attractive bridge, but ensuring citizens can engage with a human should be mandated by providing appropriate UK-based call handlers; not just for queries, but with a proactive emphasis on directly anticipating and addressing public grievances.
Although basic administrative interactions often satisfy, the communication challenge is again evident: only 24% of the public expect services to improve following complaints. Damningly, ombudsman data frequently shows the majority of fully investigated complaints are upheld.
This reveals a deeper strategic error. While the government actively woos tech champions, specific anxieties over the use of AI are left largely unaddressed. It is quixotic to expect those already cynical about the prospect of services improving to embrace new technologies without a charm offensive as effective as that afforded to its creators. This approach views public consent as a final hurdle, rather than the very foundation upon which any successful policy is built.
Renewed public trust, built through the MPE, is not an end in itself. It is the political engine required to address the state’s most profound failing: its debilitating aversion to risk. The government’s ‘Orange Book’ rightly understands that without the possibility of failure, success is impossible, yet deep-seated fear of creative destruction persists. This is not a feeling, but a structural reality, partially evidenced by the small number of “Planning” and “Risk Management” roles compared to the 56.8% of civil servants in “Operational Delivery.”
This imbalance illustrates a state in reactive posture, unable to innovate because its citizens only trust it to fail – and who can blame them? The public cannot accept the risks of a bold future from a state whose intentions it cannot see and whose competence it does not trust. This is precisely where the MPE’s potential becomes transformative. Building understanding and consensus before strategic action creates the democratic foundation upon which risks can be embraced.
Benjamin Disraeli proclaimed that “the great thing is the personal” and to understand this, to believe in it, is the first step towards building a Smarter State.
Thomas Bevan is the 2025 Tamworth Prize winner. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Bright Blue.