Which exclusive club contains the PM, the chancellor, the leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor, the business secretary and, via its affiliated European arm, the deputy prime minister? Some may think of the freemasons, but others will identify a far more shadowy and secretive bunch: special advisers.
Given the ubiquity in such powerful circles of former ‘spads’, you might think the role has long formed a crucial rung on the political ladder. But in fact spads are a relatively recent phenomenon. Michael Cockerell, a BBC journalist who has filmed a documentary on the workings of Whitehall, explains that the first special adviser, Marcia Williams, was brought into government by Harold Wilson in 1964. “The civil service tried quite hard to marginalise her,” he comments. “They wouldn’t give her Number 10 writing paper, and tried to put her a long way away from the prime minister’s room.”
However, while unpopular with civil servants, spads were loved by politicians. Quietly, they became an established Whitehall phenomenon; and when Tony Blair arrived in 1997, their numbers exploded. As PM, John Major had eight spads. Blair ended up with 25.
Many civil servants felt uncomfortable with the influx of spads, in part because they felt it hastened the shift to ‘sofa government’. However, spads aren’t necessarily rivals to the civil service, and can prove a useful addition to the policy formulation process.
Sir John Elvidge, former permanent secretary of the Scottish Executive, explains that “special advisers who genuinely know the minds of their ministers – rather than those who ascribe their own thoughts to a minister – are invaluable, because ministerial time is one of the scarcest commodities.” Good special advisers act as proxies for their ministers, and ensure that civil servants have a good understanding of what is expected from them.
In coalition government, the utility of spads increases still further. Elvidge saw two coalition governments in Scotland, and says that at these times advisers play an important role in smoothing out difficulties and negotiating policy changes. “Changing circumstances will require coalitions to evolve fresh new positions or, more delicately, to revisit the accommodations with each other that they arrived at in the first place,” he says. “There is more politics than there is objective policy analysis to the striking of those deals, and it’s therefore good to have political sherpas who can work through any misunderstandings without drawing the party leaders into the rougher phases of that process.”
In a coalition civil servants can, therefore, become more positive about special advisers. However, while in opposition the Tories publicly criticised the number of Labour special advisers; the coalition agreement contains a limit on the number that can be appointed.
In office, the government has found it increasingly difficult to stick to its own limit, and has stretched the definition of civil service recruitment. For example, David Cameron recently appointed a photographer and videographer from Tory HQ as civil servants; though the resulting media protests quickly drove them back to the Millbank payroll.
Labour’s Tom Watson MP has tried to track this phenomenon by requesting details of exceptions made to the principle that all civil service appointments be made using an open competition. On his Labour Uncut website, he reveals that 266 such appointments have been made; 30 of them to the Cabinet Office. The figures should be treated with caution because, in some cases, they include the recruitment of staff being taken in from scrapped quangos.
However, Watson does have some hard evidence that the new government is appointing people to the civil service who in previous times would probably have become spads. For example, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt appointed his former parliamentary assistant Naomi Gummer as his diary secretary, Watson’s research reveals.
Two years ago, CSW profiled all the special advisers serving the Labour government. And we have now repeated the exercise, dragging into the light the group dubbed by former Labour MP Clare Short as “the people who live in the dark”. The information has been compiled by speaking with spads, their former colleagues and employers, as well as collating evidence from other sources. For reasons of space, we have excluded non-departmental spads: those working for the leader of the House of Lords, the leader of the House of Commons, the chief whip, and Baroness Warsi, the cabinet minister without portfolio. Nonetheless, there are 65 profiles here, listed under the title of their appointing minister. It should be noted that the coalition’s spads were much less keen to talk on the record than Labour’s cohort.
So, who are these people? Many of them have come directly from working for their respective parties’ headquarters or for an MP; and it is fascinating to make a comparison with Labour’s spads here. Excluding non-departmental spads and those at Number 10 (on which our Labour data is not as strong), 89 per cent of coalition spads have spent time working in these jobs; among the equivalent group of Labour spads, the figure is just 37 per cent (see news and editorial).
Experience outside party politics is rare amongst the class of 2010. At some point in their careers, 19 per cent have worked for think-tanks, and 20 per cent have held jobs in marketing or lobbying. Only nine per cent have worked in finance, while none of them appear to have worked in business. Out of 65 special advisers, just one has worked in the armed forces – although he is an American citizen and served the United States.
Yet while these people may be inexperienced outside the realms of party politics, these days – as the leadership of all three main parties demonstrates – a background in politics and media management is the best possible preparation for a prominent ministerial career. On past form, several of the spads profiled here will go on to lead departments; or even the country. As yet, these 65 people are still learning the ropes as the powers behind the throne; but one day, many are likely to emerge as the kings and queens of Westminster.