The Brown Machine Roars into Gear
Fraser Nelson 12:39pm
I am taken to task by CoffeeHousers for praising Brown’s new team– or, as CS rather wonderfully puts it, “making cow eyes at the latest set of rentaquote spivs”. Have I gone native in a Westminster village that confuses spinners with real people? John says I’m too close to the story: outsiders should not be hired in British politics. After indulging me with that 2,400-word extended version of my political column, here’s a rather prolix reply.
First, CS, I have done a few blogs saying Team Brown is getting better because I have found this to be the case. Simple as that. Labour’s attack machine is sharper. Twice now I have learned about a Cameron press conference from a Labour Party email getting their attack lines in first. Compare this to their October mess where they failed to take apart Osborne’s questionable figures on non dom tax until papers had gone to bed at 7pm. We’re dealing with a different beast. It is, in my view, a hugely significant development.
Now, to those rentaquote spivs. Peter Oborne deals with this brilliantly in his book The Triumph of the Political Class. He spoke of politicos who had never run anything larger than a raffle, whose only skill is toadying up to people and sounding good on TV. These talentless frauds, he said, now run the government. But here is what I regard as a crucial difference: the type Brown is recruiting emphatically do not belong to that category.
How many civil servants would be appointed to run Morgan Stanley's UK investment banking division, as Jeremy Heywood was before he was poached back to be perm sec at No10? Does anyone think Jennifer Moses became a Goldman Sachs partner because she’s pretty or chatty? (And she’s an important enough figure in public policy to have Gove quoting her supportively in the Commons a while back) Spivs do not become chief executive of Virgin Media group, as Carter was (when it was called NTL). Sure, Carter ended up as CEO of Brunswick – but Brunswick is no tin-pot operation. Brunswick were the bane of my life as a business hack because they were, and are, so ruthlessly effective. It’s perhaps the best financial PR agency in Britain, which is why the mop up FTSE100 contracts and are hired by distressed companies facing hostile takeover bids (a situation eerily familiar to that Brown faced around Christmas). When I swapped business for political journalism, I was amazed at how bad the spin is in Westminster. Amateurish, clannish, bitchy, lazy, inaccurate, “either for us or against us” spin. They should hire Brunswick, I joked to myself. Now, Brown’s done exactly that.
And as for Ms Moses – I have to inform Chuck and RW that reports of her resignation are exaggerated. She cleared her desk at Centre Forum yesterday and has already been in No10 sorting out her desk and contracts. She starts on Monday on the No10 Policy Unit. To continue my West Wing metaphor, she is the Ainsley Hayes – someone who disagrees with Brown (on City Academy dilution and welfare incentives) but has been invited to work in No10. Presumably in something better than the basement that Leo allocated to Ainsley.
Finally, a point none of you will like. I have long believed there are too few special advisers in government, not too many. It’s true the UK system relies on civil servants, but it’s a huge fault. That’s why nothing changes and the bureaucratic system just gets fatter. I’d like the entire Cabinet to be appointed from outside, so we may (for example) get the health service run by someone who knows something about health. Brown is doing the right thing, and I hope Cameron follows with at least twice the number of political appointees. When I was in the Swedish PM’s office the other week, an official told me there are 400 political appointees in that tiny government. He laughed when I expressed surprise. How else, he said, could they have wrested control of education from the civil service and enacted the school voucher system?
Yes, EyeSee, the taxpayer is funding all this. But not all. Moses made so much at Goldmans she’s working for free (like Sue Nye, Brown’s gatekeeper, whose husband is also a Goldmans squillionaire). Carter is on about £120,000 – down from about £1m at Brunswick. Heywood is a permanent secretary. So it is not as if Brown’s stuffing their pockets with gold. CS says bringing folk from the outside hasn’t worked well in Britain. That’s because it’s not enough to have just one man at the top – they need to bring underlings in from outside to run the system. And SJH, my "gents" I was simply referring to the gender of the above commentators! For reasons passing my understanding (which Iain Dale explored once) it’s mostly blokes in the blogosphere.
Anyway, to assure you all – my very low opinion of Brown has not changed one bit. I regard him as a chancer whose skill lies in not being found out, and price of his failings is paid by those who languish in Britain’s welfare ghettos. I am entirely open to the idea that this could backfire horribly - Brown is, as I said originally, a recovering control freak who can relapse at any time.
But what we try to do in CoffeeHouse is call it as we see it – that means criticising Cameron when he messes up, and pointing out Brown's better decisions. The machine matters in politics, as well as the ideas – something I wish Tories would realise more than they appear to. I would be providing a pretty dire service to you lot if I took the view that “I don’t like Brown, therefore his No 10 operation must be abysmal.” If the Tories take this view (and too many do) then their battle will be over before it began.
Previous
Comments
Nick
March 8th, 2008 1:28pm"He spoke of politicos who had never run anything larger than a raffle.." Could someone explain to me in what way a Cabinet Minister actually runs a Department ? Surely the analogy that if one has never run a private business one can't run the NHS is false. Isn't it the Permanent Secretary at the Department who "runs" the Department, he or she is the CEO figure, the Minister is responsible for setting strategy, not dealing with the running of the Department.
Dave B
March 8th, 2008 1:30pmI like your suggestion that the Cabinet should be made up by political appointees.
I think the lack of checks on government power is a huge problem in the UK. If the executive ceases to be drawn from sitting MPs then the House of Commons might resume is original role of holding the government to account.
salieri
March 8th, 2008 2:54pmAn impressive defence, Fraser, of the calibre of the hirelings - and the need to take the machine seriously - but I read the criticisms on the whole as being of the conflation of message and messenger. Yes, McBean may now have vastly improved forms of communiction - they could hardly have been worse - but how does this affect what (if anything) he actually has to say? It merely proves the unintended transparency of meaning when, some years ago, 'Pubic Relations' became rebranded as 'Perception Management'. In all essential respects NuLab has never concerned itself with anything other than perception and its manipulation. In the same way the Emperor's new tailors were, no doubt, of the finest pedigree.
adrian drummond
March 8th, 2008 2:59pmNo doubt I'm missing the point, but surely this all amounts to more spin and presentation ... and, in my eyes at least, deceit. This is what I find so off putting....a lack of trust.
Alex R
March 8th, 2008 3:17pmFraser, you say that no one will agree with you about the need for more special advisers. Well you're wrong as I, for one, do. I full subscribe the comments made by Ken Livingstone in his recent interview with the Guardian when he pointed out that he would have never got the Congestion Charge through had been the head of a legislature and been forced to work through a bunch of "Sir Humphries." I don’t like that he did it, but support that he was able to do something. I believe that this country is on the edge with radical changes needed in how we deliver health, welfare, transport, pensions and particularly education if we are to stand a chance of maintaining our position in the world and compete with self-confident Asian powerhouses. I honestly hope that those who he is bring in will implement this radical change, as I don't believe that the incumbent civil servants have shown any inclination that they are up to the challenge. Many of those who will disagree with the idea of more special advisers will be people who were (and are) supporters of the Thatcher revolution. I would recommend that they look back at how she achieved what she did and remember that it was with outsiders as the driving force. I would suggest that they read John Hoskyns' 'Just in Time' for an account of the impact that outsiders had in the Thatcher government. I hope that Brown's decision to bring people in who come from different backgrounds and different ideological bents, is an indication that he is moving away from his strategy of not being found out and that he realises that change is essential. That was the power of the “we’ll fix it” quote – it indicates that they are increasingly interested in delivery.
CS
March 8th, 2008 3:25pmSorry, Fraser, the only thing I had to go by was practical evidence. Does the Civil Service run government better than special advisors? Well the latter have multiplied since 1997 and, if you seriously believe that government efficiency, competence and corruption has improved since 1997, maybe your judgement truly is blinded by your experience in business. Mind you, maybe we could do a swap because I can think of a few large British businesses which could hardly be run worse if you removed the businessmen and replaced them with civil servants.
TGF UKIP
March 8th, 2008 4:51pmFascinating and powerful stuff, Fraser, this and the Thursday post together. The Budget should hand the Tories huge ammunition and the opportunity to really take the offensive. No doubt, though, the new Team Brown will have a strategy not just to repel all boarders but to mount a significant counter strike themseves - just like Pompey against MU this after noon. (Has Stephen Carter got what it takes to be 'Arry Redknapp?) So far as the Tories are concerned your account of Central Office only confirms what the lovely Tamzin tells us weekly. On the bigger picture I would completely agree with your analysis and boil it down to - people don't know what this Tory Party stands for. I would go further though and suggest that for the ordinary voter there is not only this confusion but also an absence of trust. The reason for this is quite simple and understandable. The Tory Party they are used to and, indeed, all their friends, relatives and workmates who espouse the Tory cause, have strong views on lower taxes, tough stances on crime, immigration and welfare scroungers, a contempt for political correctness, and fervent support for the armed forces and a robustly transatlantic foreign policy.This Cameron Tory Party, however, seeks to present itself not just subtly but altogether differently. People are, therefore, quite reasonably confused on just what the Tory Party is for and may increasingly take the usual mental escape route from even thinking about polics and "they're all the same" can rarely if ever have been more justified.
Trumpeter Lanfried
March 8th, 2008 5:13pmHere's a thought. Will these high-powered outsiders tell Brown, in the interests of sound management, to stop telling lies and half truths? And if they do, will he take any notice?
UB
March 8th, 2008 5:19pmI can see it now: Jennifer Moses: I'm working in the steam Steam Pipe Trunk Distribution Venue? Gordon Brown: No, you're working in your office. Good piece Fraser, always like to see WW references whenever possible.
Chuck Unsworth
March 8th, 2008 5:31pmOh dear! "I’d like the entire Cabinet to be appointed from outside, so we may (for example) get the health service run by someone who knows something about health." Who would be making this appointment and what qualifications would they have to assess candidates? Actually it's probably not necessary to know much about 'health' - whatever that may really mean - however it is necesary to know about leading (and I mean leading, not acting as some sort of brainless figurehead) very large and diverse organisations successfully. In passing one might just mention other necessary personal qualities like integrity, real intelligence and, rarest of all, common sense. Ms Moses 'working for nothing'? Let's not be silly, eh? Nobody works for nothing - not even you, Fraser. What you're indirectly saying is that this lady is going to be an amateur advisor. I think I might agree. You have to wonder what her losses might be if she cocks things up. A slight embarrassment, then? If I was Brown which, thank God, I'm not, I'd want to have rather more purchase on those working for me than that. Then again, 'cui bono?'. We shall see if this new tranche of spads do manage to achieve anything worthwhile for the nation - or Brown. My guess is they've all left it far too late, that terminal disillusion has set in with the electorate, that no matter what steps are taken to alter policy or change image the widespread public cynicism and bitterness will render them useless. After all, what's Brown's position going to be "I know you don't trust me or my colleagues, and I know that I've had ten years or more, and really it's all been a misunderstanding blah blah blah'? Sorry, in my view it's a charade which is too late to take effect despite the undoubted talents of some of the participants. Enough damage has already been done, no matter how hard they try they'll not be able to stop further 'events'. But I shall be amused to observe their increasingly frenetic antics as Polling Day draws ever nearer.
Chuck Unsowrth
March 8th, 2008 5:38pmIncidentally, Fraser - and while I remember - what I actually said about Ms Moses was "According to some reports Moses has 'delayed' joining the Brownies - some local difficulty with her husband's huge financial losses apparently. Strange really, you'd have thought that they could do with the extra salary just now... " I still hold that view. And even more interesting is the consideration of how this poor couple will manage to keep a roof over their heads, given that her husband's business has gone tits up and she is acting as a charity worker for Brown. No income at all, then?
TGF UKIP
March 9th, 2008 12:05amSorry chaps but some of you are writing Gordon off rather too prematurely. A week may be or may not be a long time in politics but what Brown has got is two and a bit years. What I believe Fraser is cautioning is that Brown is presently assembling a formidable Downing Street administrative and presentational machine. Given the nature of Brown and Balls and the rest of the crew the whole thing may come unstuck and they'll all end up like ferrets in a sack. However, if they can exercise self discipline, and another term in power is a mighty big incentive, it could well produce a huge turn around. Remember they are faced by a lame and limp opposition with only a small and fragile lead after what has been the worst five months any government has had for donkey's years. Gordon really does have everything to play for and, I would still reckon, a better than even chance.
Fergus Pickering
March 9th, 2008 6:43amOf course the Health minister doesn't have to knoiw about health. What did Kenneth Clarke know about Economics or Margaret Thatcher about Industrial Relations. But they knew what to DO. Experts never know what to do. That's why they need non-experts to tell them.
Nicholas
March 9th, 2008 12:03pmToo much faith in British business big beasts - a fallacy. Big British business is almost as dire as government; hugely over-paid "celebrity accountants" presiding over byzantine, labyrinthine, feudal systems run by wicked barons and/or jumped up oiks where all the experience, wisdom and skill has been "age-cleansed" out. Like the government much of what you see is a carefully devised front of pretense for the impenetrable newspeak of horridly self-serving reptiles while the supporting mass of staff beaver away under the permanent shadow of "re-organisation" and redundancy. Obscene. Margaret Thatcher tamed the destructive excesses of the Unions. Who is going to tame the destructive excesses of the British business big beasts and restore a much-needed balance in our (broken) society?
J H Holloway
March 9th, 2008 10:25pmUsing Livingstone's 'outsiders' cabinent is an interesting example. He used engineering boss Derek Turner to work on the C-Charge system.
Turner recommended a euro-style system using pre-paid charge cards in the windscreen.
The system has been used in Europe for years. Livingstone, however, wanted a system in and running by 2003 so he told Turner to use the vastly inferior and hugely expensive to run ANPR cameras.
Turner told me this himself, and resigned weeks after the c-charge started in 2003 because his predictions about admin costs came true.
Livingstone had the best advice, but ignored it for political reasons - so the cabinent of experts can still fail, unless we have an ideology-free government in the future.
What matters is what works, as somebody once said.
Brian Hope
March 10th, 2008 9:20amPerhaps I am going loony in my old age as the family tell me, but isn't everyone missing the point? Why are we talking about good or bad "attack groups"? Surely we should be talking about a Party or Politician's ability.