First, fewer Special Advisers. Now, a record number. But where's much of the growth? Step forward, Nick Clegg...
By Lewis Sidnick
Follow Lewis on Twitter
The
departure of Steve Hilton and Andy Coulson from Downing Street received
widespread media coverage. But much less attention has been given
to the wave of Prime Ministerial advisers and Special Advisers (SpAds) deserting
their posts. Since
2010, with a few exceptions, Secretaries of State have been allowed to
have a SpAd, but other Ministers have not (in contrast
to the Blair and Brown Governments). When entering Downing Street, David Cameron placed great emphasis on cutting the number of advisers across
Government from 82 to 61. The decision got some good headlines - but it was a
mistake.
SpAds are crucial to their Ministers. First, they are political, and can therefore protect, warn and be a safety net for a Minister walking the tightrope of Ministerial office. Civil servants have agendas (to varying degrees). They want to direct their Ministers, and they want to influence decisions. A Minister often stands very little chance against an army of civil servants and the boxes of papers that they present. A little advice and perspective from their political adviser can be crucial - but this is unavailable to most of David Cameron’s Ministers below Cabinet level.
However, while there has been growth in the number of advisers, the new intake haven’t added to the old crowd. The turnover rate is extraordinary, even for political sector jobs. Of the 20 advisers in Cameron’s office in June 2010, just five remain today, a 75 per cent turnover rate that would send alarm bells ringing in the Human Resources Department of any private organisation. Of the four advisers who started in Clegg's office, just one remains today.
Outside Downing Street, individual Government Departments have lost over 15 SpAds. This means practically every Department has lost one of its advisers (normally one or two per Department - a political advisor and a media advisor). This rate of departure is particularly high precisely because there has not been a great number of reshuffles in this Parliament (SpAds tend to leave if their Minister gets the chop). So within a relatively stable Government with more settled Ministers, the quantity of advisers at the heart of Government leaving can probably be attributed to their expectation that their bosses will be sitting on the Opposition benches after 2015.
They can also demand higher salaries now than after the election, especially as the market gets flooded after a Party leaves Government. A large number of those who have left have gone to public affairs consultancies and trade associations (interestingly, not as many have gone to take up in-house roles). Some have taken work as full time staff, and others as part-time advisers. The latter are accused (often wrongly) of only being rolled out at pitch time by consultants looking for new clients.
Corporate affairs recruiter Wayne Reynolds of Birchwood Knight told me that: “whilst many of the skills good SpAds possess are highly transferable to a corporate environment, there is often a gap in areas such as people and budget management relative to their salary expectations that can be more easily overcome in a consultancy role.”
Examples of those going to consultancies rather than in-house roles include James O’Shaughnessy, a former Director of Policy at Number 10, who now advises Portland Public Affairs. MHP Communications have snapped up three former SpAds. Earlier this year, Flora Coleman, an adviser to Lord Strathclyde, joined MHP - and Bill Morgan, a former adviser to Andrew Lansley, as well as Sean Worth, a former Downing Street adviser. Those leaving for Trade Associations have included Peter Campbell, who went to the Business Services Association from Number 10, and Paul Stephenson, who left the Department of Health to join the British Bankers Association.
So the number of SpAds has steadily grown in the last few years (with huge turnover rates) and has overtaken the number working for the previous Government. To summarise, the Prime Minister has simultaneously failed to keep his pledge to reduce the number of special advisers working in Government while also leaving his Ministers with less support than their predecessors had in the last Parliament. This is primarily because of the growth in the number of advisers working for his deputy - another price to pay for coalition Government, some will say.
Comments