Britain’s civil service is often depicted, in fact and in fiction, as an unchanging monolith. Yet for decades Whitehall has been an arena of repeated and often radical change. Governments of different colours – the Conservatives in 1951 and 1979, Labour in 1964 and 1997 – have come into office suspicious of what they saw as a kind of permanent Whitehall machine, dedicated to maintaining a continuity in policy which politicians are powerless to overthrow. Now, as a result of the 2019 election, Britain has another such government.

Boris Johnson’s government will soon unveil its own plans for public sector reform. In an article on Thursday, the influential Conservative policy adviser Rachel Wolf makes clear that these are not intended to be cosmetic. Instead, Ms Wolf argues that changing Whitehall will be a major and radical focus of the Johnson era. Too much of the early discussion about the possible changes, she warns, has focused on a departmental reshuffle, with the Brexit department closed down, and changes affecting the Home Office, justice and international development.

Important though such changes could be, Ms Wolf sees them as only a fraction of the larger plan crafted by the prime minister’s chief aide, Dominic Cummings. She thinks officials are “woefully unprepared for what is coming”. This larger plan, of which futuristic inklings can be gleaned from Mr Cummings’s personal blog, is focused on modernisation, systems and delivery. Some of its elements could include recruiting more science and technology graduates, making existing civil servants pass exams in data science and systems, and ensuring that officials stay in departments for longer than the current tendency to move on after 18 months.

It would be easy, and to an extent understandable, to react to this radicalism with exasperation. After all, civil service numbers have been cut by a fifth since 2010. For some years, the 18-month merry-go-round between jobs has been one of the few ways to get a pay rise. And while some of the things that Mr Cummings wants to see on data, teams and openness are already established good practice, it is a huge ask to expect such a stretched system to deliver efficiently without substantial new investment.

Yet it would be wrong to write off the government’s plans. First, they have not yet even seen the light of day. They should be read first, then discussed. Second, it is undeniable that the British state could do much better at delivering projects and systems on time, on budget and in a manner that puts the citizen first. Cost overruns, delayed implementation, poor productivity and inefficient delivery systems are not fake news. They are familiar realities. And, third, if the pressures for promotion, among ministers and among civil servants, are not restrained in a sensible way, then the long-term policymaking consequences for society are likely to be harmful.

The Johnson government is entitled to confront these issues. It has promised more GP appointments, train lines and police officers. It is reasonable for it to ensure, as far as possible, that these pledges are fulfilled. In the now very distant event of a Labour government, the same would apply. That does not mean that the government must get a blank cheque. Some of Mr Cummings’ ideas are naively technophile. Others betray a starry-eyed faith in Silicon Valley management theory. The love of disruption responds to a genuine problem of inertia with what could become a destructive fetish. Yet Britain is right to expect a state sector that offers the public a good deal. That requires proper levels of spending. But it requires a lot of other things too.