Special advisers do good work too
Fraser Nelson 9:05am
The McBride affair may have a dangerous side-effect – and that is blackening the name of special advisers. I am in the minority position of wanting to see more of them in Whitehall, and here’s why. McBride’s problem was his behaviour, not his status. The current suggestion that the real problem is his SpAd status – and not the instructions from dhis master - is a clever piece of self-exculpatory spin from Brown. We should not fall for it. And it’s also an insult to the many other SpAds who do good, honest work.
I imagine many CoffeeHousers baulked at that last bit – but “good, honest spad” is not a contradiction in terms. The idea of political appointees is widespread in Western democracies (think of the staff in The West Wing), and we in Britain are unusual in having so few. As not many in the Cabinet have any expertise in their chosen field, this makes it even harder to break status quo. There aren’t many countries where Yes, Minister could resonate – the series was a penerating comment on how, in Britain, the civil service is the real government and the ministers just provide the showbiz. (Even Thatcher achieved little with health and education – her battle was an economic one). Now if you’re happy with the current state of public services, then our Sir Humphrey model is fine. But if you want radical reform, then it’s a real problem.
My main critique of the Blair government is that it managed to deliver so little of the very good pro-reform, pro-choice agenda which it devised in its second term. Part of the problem was having Brown, the champion of state control, orchestrating rebellions against Blair’s reforms. The other part was failure to enact what reforms had been agreed.
Take the NHS reforms, which would have introduced an internal market more radical than anything under the Tories. It was Alan Milburn and about two SpAds against a staff of 1.3 million who prefer the status quo. If you could take, say, 50 experts from the health industry (as opposed to the health bureaucracy) and scatter them at strategic points throughout the NHS system you may be able to deliver proper reforms. But the NHS is the largest organisation in the Western world: it just can’t be transformed by a team small enough to fit in a taxi. The system will invent 101 ways of defeating you, as it did with the Blair pro-market reforms. Especially if they think there will be another Secretary of State (and another set of SpAds) along in a minute.
When I visited the Swedish government HQ last year to learn about their school reform programme, I discovered that in that tiny Rosenbad building – smaller than many English town halls – there were 400 special advisers. The guy I was talking to was Mikael Sandström, who had the elevated title of “state secretary” even though he was a SpAd. He is an academic, one of the world’s experts in school choice, who had been appointed by the government to drive through its radical choice agenda and defend it from bcritics. If someone were to say ‘these schools are socially divisive’ he can point to several peer-reviewed empirical studies saying why that's not true. This is how governments enact an agenda of change. Without such advisers, then any reforming government would be overwhelmed.
In supporting evidence, I’d like to cite Andrew Adonis. He was a special adviser, put into the Lords and made education minister because Blair knew the civil service would strangle the idea of independent state schools unless he had someone he could trust and who would work flat out to drive it forward. Adonis did as much behind the scenes as a SpAd as he did as a minister. Except you never hear about the SpAds who do the good work. He was one of them. There are others, but they are names you won’t know. As a SpAd, David Willetts was instrumental in many key reforms of the last Tory government. But because he behaved himself, no one heard about him. No one credits him. But it would have been a weaker and less effectual government without him.
McBride was not an egregious example of a Labour party SpAd. Until 2005 he was not even a party member – a point that's been frequently made to me, over the past few days, by Labour MPs who now who see him (and Brown’s bully boy tactics) as a contagion that needs to be rooted out of the party before it spreads. McBride was not schooled in politics (the open art of winning votes, canvassing, winning argument) but in Brown warfare (briefing against your Cabinet rivals). His tactics were useless in real politics, which is why he never managed to lay a glove on any Tory. All his victims were in the Labour Party. Many other Labour SpAds were among his victims.
My point: if you wish to take on a bureaucracy, then bureaucrats are not always the best people for the job. You need backup, you need experts – and having the ability to hire some is no bad thing. Look at the Shadow Cabinet lineup – how many of them do you think will drive through radical change? It is an understandable kneejerk reaction to the spin of the Labour years to say ‘let’s leave it to the civil servants’. If the Tories do so, then they’ll achieve nothing.
Previous
Chris lancashire
April 15th, 2009 9:33am Report this commentI believe that Blair's pro-market reforms were torpedoed by one G Brown at the Treasury rather than the DoH Civil Service.
We do not need hundreds of overpaid SpAds to deliver change. What we need is strong and coherent Cabinet government.
James Forsyth
April 15th, 2009 9:37am Report this commentJust to further Fraser's point, if you look at the areas where Tory policy is most developed you find that these are the briefs that have the best SPADs
Chuck Unsworth
April 15th, 2009 9:39am Report this commentI'm not impressed by Adonis. Charming and civil he may be, but able? He got lucky on several occasions, and there's little doubt that he works fairly hard, but I don't think he's a genius.
You're aguing that an internal market within the NHS has been a success. Many would dispute that. Indeed there are now calls for (yet another) reorganisation of the administration and lines of responsibility within hospitals. As to the farce of GPs surgeries and the various incentives to GPs to offer ancillary services - can anyone point to serious research which indicates tangible 'improvements'? All this nonsense about reduced waiting times hides the more important question of quality of diagnosis, treatment and patient care.
'Radical change' in our various services over the past decade has not justified the costs and upheavals. Every Minister when taking charge of a department wishes to make his or her mark. It is this blind arrogance which has led to the disatrous failures we see around us - viz Education, Transport, Agriculture, Energy etc. No, I believe it would have been altogether better if Ministers had not indulged their ambitions by tinkering with matters and had understood when it was best to keep their grubby little hands off the levers of power. But that might demand too much in the way of genuine ability and commonsense from these 'politicians'.
Nicholas
April 15th, 2009 9:55am Report this commentBut the role is highly dependent upon the culture within the organisation. Political chicanery and the undermining of those seen as opponents or who hold dissenting views is endemic in Britain, even in the corporate world. It is one reason why people like McBride rise to the top. Very little to do with ability or service and more to do with ruthless personal agendas.
Since SpAds are not accountable to anyone but their political masters and not elected, the culture in which they serve needs to be rigorously predicated. Rules are not enough. Those who set the tone need to be circumspect and precise in directing what is happening below them and how their names are being used.
A lot more older, wiser people from outside politics in politics would be a good start. There are far too many young, narrowly specialised, relatively inexperienced and overly ambitious types steering the public discourse.
The line between an expert, like Sandstrom, and an insufferable zealot, like Dr Dixon, is a very fine one.
Grytpype-thynne
April 15th, 2009 10:13am Report this commentNo and no!Special Advisers have conclusively demonstrated over several decades that they are not fit for purpose.Paid for out of the Public Purse, politicians will always abuse such a system.Let them be given peerages, become ministers and have some sort of accountability if their "expertise" is needed, which I severely doubt.
McBride was plotting against his master's political opponents and being paid for by the taxpayer.Being contrarian is all very well, but not when it heads towards a thoroughly discredited, exploited,immoral and hated philosophy
EC
April 15th, 2009 10:23am Report this commentSpAd n.
1.
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
Denis Cooper
April 15th, 2009 10:57am Report this commentBut I'd need to be convinced that a special adviser was doing his good work for the country, not for a political party, or for a politician within the context of a party, before I'd agree that he should be maintained at public expense.
I'm totally opposed to any public resources whatsoever being used for party political purposes, whether it's blatant "state funding" of parties, or more subtle subsidies like an entitlement to free party political broadcasts.
I'd even say that if a party wishes to use House of Commons facilities for its own party political purposes, for example in connection with a leadership contest, then it should be charged.
The state exists for the benefit of all of its citizens, while political parties are no more than voluntary associations of citizens pursuing their own sectional interests; they are not, and they should never be treated as, state institutions.
Athesius the Facilitator
April 15th, 2009 11:02am Report this commentI think you are missing the point Fraser. Mcbride had no specialisation. He was just an attack dog. If he had No 10 full of technical experts from flood defences to potato growing then nobody would mind. But Brown uses all his advisers as a rebuttal unit or deflector screen to stave off criticism.
Dave B
April 15th, 2009 11:43am Report this commentReform published some interesting suggestions for reforming the Civil Service.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/03/andrew-haldenby.html
Michael Taylor
April 15th, 2009 11:56am Report this commentCase not proven. We know with great certainty that SpAds have been, and are being, used both for the lowest of political purposes, but also as a 'grooming' position on the career ladder of politics.
And that they are paid at our expense - which they simply should not be for either job.
Now, Mr Nelson advances the proposition that they could, some time in the future, be used to do useful work aiding all-too-easily overwhelmed ministers. Perhaps they could. But perhaps also, our civil administration, and our civil society, would be improved if instead of simply drafting whoever onto the payroll, experts in their field were invited to help the government of their own country by availing the ministers of their talents and expertise. As for payments - well, this is one case in which public honours to recognize the sacrifice of time made, and the achievement of public good attained, would be appropriate.
Not only would this cut away at the pernicious growth of a political elite with increasingly little need to know anything of, or interact with, the electorate, it would also help restore another part of our discredited and dysfunctional political arrangements - the honours system.
Britain does have decent and talented people who would be willing to help. Binding them to the revolting and failed political elite by chains of gold won't help.
Old Safety Engineer
April 15th, 2009 3:56pm Report this commentSPAD was a term we heard a lot about, in aftermath of various rail disasters - it meant "Signal Passed At Danger" ie. ignoring a red light!
Perhaps we should apply a similar meaning to McPoison and his ilk.
J H Holloway
April 15th, 2009 5:00pm Report this commentFraser. I come from a blue chip working class background and my parents live a definitive 'swing state'. This weekend my mother surprised me with two statements.
First, she's abstaining next June (the second person who said that to me this weekend) and secondly, she complained bitterly about Jaqui Smith.
This was not just because of the expenses scam but because she wanted to know how she was 'qualified for the job'. She was concerned that ministers knew nothing about the subject they were in charge of and that they were reshuffled too often.
This ties in with your spAd point. You defend the idea saying....'The guy I was talking to was Mikael Sandström, who had the elevated title of “state secretary” even though he was a SpAd. He is an academic, one of the world’s experts in school choice, who had been appointed by the government to drive through its radical choice agenda and defend it from critics."
But the point is he was an expert who became a spAd. This current lot are just political bag carriers who became spAds. It's Labour party bringing their mates with them to office.
Your example also ties in neatly with my mother's concern. It's becoming clear we need experts to run things, not randomly selected people who became MPs. Take IDS who became an expert in poverty after he lost the leadership - all sides of politics listen to him.
If spAds are not experts, Fraser, they're no use.
Benjamin Gray
April 15th, 2009 8:04pm Report this commentIt strikes me that there are two separate-yet-intertwined issues here: one is about the very nature of the SpAds' work, and the other their being paid from the public purse. Has anyone recommended a way of allowing them to do the former without the latter?
Jerry
April 16th, 2009 9:16am Report this commentSome good points, but the root of all these problems is political parties, by which I mean the organised, funded and officially recognised groupings. Can anyone suggest an essential difference between a group of like-minded people attempting to influence the result of an election and any other conspiracy?
The law on conspiracies is quite clear - it is unlawful to conspire to effect an illegal act (influencing the result of an election) even if individual acts of the conspirators are not themselves illegal.
You might ask how we could have elections without parties to put up candidates, etc.? Easy, anyone can put himself up for election (with suitable safeguards, like a £10,000 deposit to be lost if less than, say, 5% of the electorate (not the turnout) votes in support), supplying a written statement to the Returning Officer who publishes all the statements in random order. Then, with no advertising allowed (including colours, slogans or any other identifiers) people can choose their favoured candidate. Obviously this favours the local candidate, which is as it should be.
Such a scheme would need a change in procedures, not least a handover period in the Commons so that the new intake can find their feet and elect a candidate to propose to the Monarch as Prime Minister. Now that's (nearer to) Democracy!
Back to top