The Modern British History Podcast

2. Special advisors - with Dr Athanassios Gouglas

• Harry White

Share episode

In this episode we hear from Dr Athanassios Gouglas on the subject of special advisors. Dr Gouglas is a politics lecturer at the university of Exeter and you can find out more about his research here: https://politics.exeter.ac.uk/staff/gouglas/

In the coversation we cover why special advisors came into being, the benefits and tensions they produce in the system, and more!

Dr Gouglas kindly supplied the following reading suggestions for those keen to go deeper into the topic:

United Kingdom

  • Blick, A. (2004). People who live in the dark. The history of the special adviser in British politics. London : Politico's, 2004.
  • Yong, B. & Hazell, R. (2014). Special Advisers: Who they are, what they do and why they matter. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
  • Orchard D, Gouglas A, Pickering H (2023). Life after Whitehall: the career moves of British special advisers. British Journal of Politics and International Relations Abstract. DOI.https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221144228

Internationally comparative

Support the show

So we have another guest on this episode. So we have the Nassis goop class is a lecture. At the university of Exeter and one of his special. Uh, interest is on special advisors. So that's what we're going to be. Looking at today and I'm, as I say, very excited about this one. So first one just wants to save big. Welcome Thanassis. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you Harley. Sorry for the invitation. Really happy that I am here with you today. It'd be great. If you could just tell us a bit about your general research, interests, your background, and maybe a bit kind of leaning into how you got interested in this particular topic. Have a special advisors. So, as you mentioned. I am a lecturer. I. Take university of Exeter. I've been there for five years. I teach. Politics and public policy and global governance. And. Uh, with respect to my research. I study. Within the show called executive triangle. Meaning politicians advisers and the seniors. Civil servants. And I am. Interested. In the study of, uh, Uh, political advisors. To executive politicians. Uh, and what they do in the backstage. Yeah. Uh, especially how. Do they help? Or not help. Shape. Uh, public. Now. Why am I interested in this topic? Uh, I'm interested in this topic because in the past I've been an advisor myself. Uh, and I have been a political advisor. It differently than you will. Expect in the UK system. I was an advisor in Greece. But I was an advisor. Uh, As a secondary. Civil servant in a minister. Officers during the Greek crisis. Um, so it was. Always of interest to me to be able to understand. What is it? An advisor. Uh, why does it. And what is it that the ministers. Do in this executive triangle. And whether they are actually shooting for the job. Uh, so when I decided to have a career change and not being a practitioner anymore, Um, I decided that I needed to, to dissolve various questions. But I had in my mind. And uh, if they are for. Uh, one of my research interests. Became the study of. Is relations. This executive triangle. To start off with, I thought we'd go with the sort of, um, Simple. On the one hand, but probably quite difficult. On the other hand question of what is a special advisor, this is a kind of a symbol to get difficult question to answer. In the sense that the terminal defines a is a very general kind of a term that lacks well defined, meaning. Uh, and it lacks a well-defined meaningful various reasons. First. Men. MI advisors to politicians, they have an official status. Uh, so for instance, politicians can be advised by a friend by exposures. By people that they know and they like, and they find you there. Thinking. Um, many advisors are not. Not employed by ministers officially. They work outside. So-called executive. Advisory and support office. Uh, they are at hook. Consultants, maybe they can be political appointees with executive powers that they have been appointed maybe by the minister, but not inside the office. Uh, they can be in the political parties. Actors. Outside. Uh, the executive triangle. Another problem is that the job description. Uh, political advisers. It's very minimally defined. And it's very minimally defined when we compare it to job description. Suvan servants and even politicians themselves. And finally the actual things that advisors do. Uh, administrators. Officers and head of government officers. Uh, have a great variety. They have a great variety of frogs. So it is not just to advice to that is that they do not just provide judgment on. The sheep communication and political issues, but they help. With all kinds. Uh, issues that are very important there's a matter of. Um, fish, mostly police with them. The ability for roads and the different traditions. Across countries. That first time. Uh, has created, have created the plethora of terms. Uh, we, uh, at some point with. Some of my PhD students, we conducted a systematic literature review and we found that that just in the countries of the Westminster tradition. They're not at least 19 different terms used. Uh, 20 fair to advisors, for instance. Okay. We're talking about special advisors, but special advisors is a kind of a term that is not really used in other countries. Other countries use a, I don't know, for instance, Canada uses the term exam stuff. Yeah. Uh, to mean that they are exempt from the usual provisions about civil servants. And also referred to as mean, instead I love. Pfizer's political advisers and so on and so forth. So this was a kind of a very. Uh, big introduction to say that. Uh, depending on who you ask to have a different opinion about what is the object of research. And of study, but what I would like. To say here is like for today I would like to say, I would like to define shortly for. Am. I will be talking about. So I wouldn't be talking about. Political staffers. Or personally. Appointed. As temporary. Uh, servants. This means that they are exempt from meritocratic recruitment. And their tenure. It's linked to the individual who hires them. Who hires them? And minister. Or the head of government, the prime minister. Yeah. So work in their offices. Uh, and of course, what is it that they do there? They offer. Art is an advice. So they are exempt from impartiality requirements and that makes them very different than civil servants. They are by default. Artisan and of course, except for this provision of parties and advise that you also assist with policy. Well, clinical communication and politics functions within this so-called executive advisory and support office. Which in the UK has a specific shape. And of course we need to keep in mind that in other countries, for instance, in my country, Greece has. Totally different shape. And they gave a talk about. These kinds of new trial with Sonya. Uh, hybrid actually hybrid officers. We have a private office, which is a neutral and we have the spot. What pathogen. In systems like increased France, Italy, we'll have the carbon name. I'm interested in that kind of ad hoc. Uh, element that you, that you mentioned, uh, to these kind of. Agents within government. What are some of the strengths and weaknesses that are commonly most commonly sort of pointed out to, with that kind of ad hoc? Um, that they're not. Necessarily have a contract in the same way. They don't might not. Have the same rules of governance apply to them. All of that. What are some of the common strengths and weaknesses that people point to with that? I think the biggest benefit is loyalty. Um, or so far. And the second is the ability to political control, the policy process, which means to steer the police. Process to what the part is on direction. Which in the end is what politicians want. They have been elected. Uh, to implement a specific program. And to be able to do this, they need to. Uh, overcome. Uh, very often certain obstacles. Uh, These are obstacles that they don't just find environment and. From opposing political parties, but very often they find them within. Itself. Yeah, so. There's actors there. Um, yeah, loyal. And they help. Well controlled. It's process. And this is the biggest benefits for politicians. And then with the relationship with ministers, what is that relationship? You've touched on it a little bit, that they can sort of have that personal loyalty to a minister. So I'm interested in a bit more about what their relationship to ministers looks like. Um, and maybe how it differs from, from other civil servants, but also thinking about. Does that vary from, from country to country and. Is the UK. Um, model of special advisors and their relationships and ministers is that. Common amongst different jurisdictions or is that more unusual? Well, I wouldn't say that. The United Kingdom. Unusual, I think. It is a typical system. Uh, We are small officer's dominate and aware age. Minister has only two to three special advisors. The exception being the prime minister. As far as the 50 60, it depends. So in the UK, what we see is we see a president. of the prime minister office. Whereas the minister. I love is to remain largely. Uh, within the show called Westminster tradition. Um, Now. Loyalty and trust. These are big. These are resources in the system. Yeah. So the advisors were very important in their systems. Uh, they usually. Uh, need to gain the trust. They have the loyalty, but they need to also gain the trust of the minister and lunch or of the prime minister. And once they have this. They can exchange. Uh, for influence. Now in systems on one differences, is that. Um, in, in systems where you have many advisors, like in the United States for it. Or increase France. Australia, which is a cabinet. Uh, system to a certain extent. Uh, you get what I have called in one of my, uh, bookshop. Chapters in the past. Circles of. Trust. You've seen the movies about circles of trust. So in the big office skills, you have the inner core, you have a sort of. Outer court. And the very outer court. Uh, of people. Now, this kinds of circles of trust. Uh, you also find them in the UK, you'll find them in the prime minister's office, which is an office with many. But when a minister or. Only has two spots. Um, They're there. Uh, these special advisors are usually carefully selected. Uh, to both, uh, be loyal and. Trusted. What's the special advisors relationship to the permanent civil service or, or non-relationship well, it depends on how you sit. There are different things. We started with respect to the relationship area. Um, uh, one issue, uh, one accusation let's say, which is, uh, very, uh, We find it very often also in the media is that. Advisors politicize. Uh, And they crowd out expertise. Eh, by bringing politics into the process. So there is a big question about a corporation. executive triangle and the way it is. Cooperate or. Uh, whether they shop does clash. Uh, between each other. And this corporation, corporation and rivalry. You should exist between advisors and civil servants. We'll serve on some politicians. Uh, advisors and politicians and advisors themselves. Um, and, um, The managed service. Uh, have shown. Uh, fat. In certain systems in certain times. Operation is quite high. So there is not. Too many problems. But in other real rush. Even within the same system. Uh, rivalry ranch. Hi. So we cannot by default say that. Um, The presence of advisers. Brings corporation or brings rivalry. Uh, it depends on always on the circumstance. Um, And of course, this is a kind of a. Uh, topic of research. It has been going on. Uh, for a lot of time. And of course, what we know is we know that way in which advisors. Uh, can cause. But I've and. And they can weigh in. They can cause tension. Yeah. And the one of the ways that they can cause tension is via. Pushing, uh, in new truck, civil service. Uh, to politicize. And this can happen via various ways. And some systems. Political advisors get involved. In civil service appointments. This is called foreman. There's never happens in vacate almost never. But. In Greece, it happens. For instance, it happens in the United States. And the United Kingdom is not. It's not so common. And another way in which they can create rivalry is via. Gate keeping function. Yeah. They do not allow the advice from civil service. He wants to reach. Uh, the minister or the blockchain. From scene. In the literature, this process has been called. Uh, administrative procedural. Politicization of as the jargon. Um, another way in which they can, cause friction is. I actually changing the piece of advice. But they receive. Um, short for instance. you write something? It goes up. Goes to the spot. Despite doesn't like it, they change it. Yeah. This is called substandard administrative. Uh, so again, a jargon. When they turn, but to just reflect this kind of problem. Yeah. And the last way in which, um, advisors. Um, I can create a rivalry. Intention is. Via. Neutral civil surface. To functionally. Uh, politicize. Fishman's by pushing them to think about. Tactical and electrons. All the time. And actually making them enter into a competition. On this kind of advice. So suddenly where you have a shipping service. You can serve on offering. Uh, fearless and Frank. Uh, advice to the minister, suddenly they start becoming strategic advisors. Offering. Also tactical. Electoral advice. To the minister. Yeah. And so these are the different avenues. In which advisors can create tension. Uh, but. But of course the empirical study. Of this phenomena or formal of their role in formal politicization administrative culture. And functionable. Uh, the empirical investigation. Shows us that. Shows differences, but I believe. Depending what country. Depending system. Depending on type of office. Depending on time. So we cannot make. Sweeping. Uh, generalizations about. Uh, and very often, and this is a kind of surprising. I dissolved in some systems. Uh, Advisors actually. To protect. From certain kinds of politicization. Surely in the UK. The understanding and the literature is that. Uh, the president of spot. Interrelate. The civil servants from having. To produce this kind of political strategic advice that ministers want. So they do it for them. Uh, otherwise ministers would. Have you still needed the supplies you with this artist didn't exist. I wouldn't have needed to get this advantage from. And in many systems. Uh, ministers do get this advice also from the top echelons of the civil service. Uh, and although in the UK, The sound or something bizarre. Uh, in some systems, this is not bizarre. This is actually something that. Uh, and, uh, you might think. Okay, maybe this is something that they do increase. But no, they do it also another. They do this in Germany. They do. In some Northern countries, they do it. United States. so going into kind of the, the histories. Angle of this. Now, so. Could you give a bit of a sort of potted history of, of, of special advisors, particularly in the UK, sort of how they came into being, um, you know, To what extent has something like this? So why is existed? So as with. The history of political advisors. Is there any system we usually have first stages. We have the emergence of advisers. We have the institutionalization of advisers. And the expansion of advisers. Yeah. And, uh, there's a fourth stage also in some systems we're just stabilization The special advisors that we know in the UK. We started in 1964. Uh, Lee, uh, labor prime minister. Harold Wilson was in power at the time. And he was the first one to appoint five special advisors. In the form. Of temporary civil servants of political party. Association. And these people were appointed. To the cabinet. Office and the treasury. So this was a very kind of a small team. Of people, but they were the first one. That hand. This road. Yeah, temporary. Political party. Association. It was the first wave. Uh, The next government. Uh, the contrast. The government kept. They didn't do many cages. But when Harold Wilson came back to power. And in 1974. She expanded the system and institutionalized. So this was the second wave. Uh, and what is, and what does this mean? This means that. Uh, first of all, with his famous state. First of all, when he came, she came to part in 74. Um, he basically allowed ministers to appoint. Special advisors. Not just that special. The covenant office. Second demand is. He made a very interesting. Statement. Where he, um, Went through all the basic reasons why politicians ministers, executive politicians need is actors. And the nine to 70. And of course the first order in council. That contained. The legal reference. Special advice. Now. The third wave. From the seventies, we had to go to the nineties and of the nineties, 19 97, 20 blur. What are the fed away from the expansion of digital officers? And essentially what happened then we had an increase in numbers. All across the department, but mainly we had an increase in the numbers surrounding the prime minister. So we have the show called the NCLR. Of the office. Of the prime minister show, the office of Tony Blair and every prime minister since 1997. It looks a bit more like a traditional cabinet system. Yeah. Residential stuff system. There's certain extent. Uh, after that there's a fourth wave of institutionalization and expansion and there's posing. 20. Uh, with a coalition government. So what happens then? We. I have a very strong legal. Uh, full thing. For special advisors, we have the code of conduct of 2010. We have the constitutional reform and governance act of 2010, the civil service called and all this. Uh, describes the work. Of a political advisor, special advisors and all the preoccupations. There's also an attempt to create. Cardenas. Yeah, like they exist in France. With the extended ministerial officers. This didn't work. So in 2015, uh, This experiment with a GMOs. Was taken back. And the system started to stabilize in its current form. So you asked me about the reasons. Right. So I'm going to have to go back to the sixth is now. Yeah, I'm quite interested in what. You know, What caused that was that often these changes to things. Sometimes they're caused by some crisis or some problem that's needed to be solved or. More evolutionary maybe, but you tell me. So there are five main regions. Uh, with respect to the UK, and these are reasons that we also find. Um, In other systems as well, when we started the emergency in this. Realization of the. The first reason is that in 1964, It was a change of government. Yeah. After a very long stay in opposition. Yeah. 13 years in a position. Last time labor was in power. In 1951. Just. Check on. Issue. Was the need. For political control and political responsiveness. Um, And there was a big movement. From many reformers at the time. Wanted more control over the bureaucracy. And they wanted more control over the bureaucracy to push ahead for. With specific. Uh, social and economic reform. Forms. Uh, planet. Planning, there was a kind of technocratic vision at the time in the left-wing. And so on and so forth. So check. Original was political control. Third reason. And these reasons are all configurational. They link. To each other. The third. There is one, was that there was a mistrust of the public service of. Of a certain service. Um, the shipping service. At the time. I was not. Loved at. Not as much as it was back in the nag and forth. It was accused of technical incompetence. And I'm people like Thomas palak. An economist, an advisor. Well, Sean was accusing the civil service even for conspiracy. To enforce. Uh, it's liberal economic policies. Upon ministers. Now. We also need to set the context a bit. Yeah. And that's the fourth reason. There was a crisis. At the time. And why was the crisis in the UK? It was the shreds crisis. Um, Which was a kind of existential cancer. Kranich's for the country. And it was also the demise of the empire. Which opened. Uh, the discus. Discussion for broader reforms in the UK, including. Administrative for the fourth. And this. Crisis. Uh, created the kind. Kind of a public mood against the civil service. Yeah. And this. Moved against the civil service started to become a bit master. It was a mode against amateurism. Generalism Oxbridge. Let's call it. Uh, like this. And all this culminated into a push. For a reform. And the fifth reason. Which is a kind of original, first smaller scale, I would say, but still existed. Then if you read the statement of. Prime minister Wilson in 1975. You will see that the very important reason was. They need. To get assistance with government workload. The government business started becoming more professional, more difficult, more complex problems, more wicked. Um, And the moon. And heads of governments needed. A lot of help. Most of the help. That they could get. And not only on issues of policy, but also political committee. We need to start thinking also that since the sixties, seventies, we started having immediate aviation. Political life. So these are the five. The reasons why. Advisors. And I've got institutionalized and these are the kinds of reasons that. Um, we find another systems as well. It's time to take the third one, the mistrust of the civil service. Um, you mentioned that it was, there was labor that came in. When you. Here about the civil service at the time or in the I'm thinking main, particularly in the popular culture. Watching that TV says like, yes, minister. I think there's a, there was a general perception that the civil service at the time was sort of conservative with a small C maybe. And I wondered if, if, was that part of what you were getting at about the labor mistrust or was it that, or perhaps something different. Yeah. So by the 1980s, Um, The people in the UK started to be a bit more distrustful of the civil service, whereas. Whereas this didn't exist so much. In the sixties and the fifties. Uh, in the six. And the fifth is, they was the lit. Uh, Uh, who started. Like for instance, the Fabiana. Yeah, the$5 society. Uh, they wrote some very famous papers. I wrote the paper to 1947. They love the shovel. Civil service. Despite some criticism. They thought it was definitely one of the best in the world. Uh, 20 years afterwards. They. We're heavily criticizing the civil service and. They were considering the civil service as part of the problem. Have a UK was facing and the problem was the DK. Of the UK as a global power. There were other, uh, individuals. So for instance, I mentioned Thomas Balak. Who was an economic advisor to. Wilson. Very influential. She wrote a very critical chapter. Uh, which is I advise everybody to read it. It's called the apple of the dilettante, uh, where he heavily criticized the civil service about its technical incompetence. Amateurism it's a lead this. As background and he wants to accuse them for this conspiracy. Uh, and this all came against, uh, The idea that the civil service had for itself. And the way it was being run by a very famous. The civil service at the time, Mr. Bridges. Creators have has written a very famous, has done a very famous speech in the 1950s. Which again is, is a document that is worth studying. Uh, where she sets. All these elements of the identity of the previous civil service. The fact that they're generalist. Um, The fact that they are come from. The background, the fact that they can. Uh, jump from job to job every two, three years. Everything that we know of as the civil service has been described there and what was happening at the time between the end of the second world war. 1950s. And before labor came back to power. Uh, Britain was changing. And one of the main. Pillars. Of the. The British establishment. Which was civil service. Has been challenged. And he was being criticized as having played a role in the demise of Britain. As a global power. And I guess that's what links them to Sue as being then would Sue as be the kind of symbol. Symbol of that or The apotheosis of. That moment. Whereas there's the catalyst. This is the kind of. The moment. When everything changes. It's the moment when. Uh, the UK understands. But its foreign policy is not independent anymore. It tries to organize and invasion. Uh, and intervention. Uh, In Egypt. And it gets of. Of course criticized. From the Soviet union. Allies. From the United States, the United States does not support. Uh, the intervention. And this is the downfall of Anthony Eden as well for. In general, he was a very successful minister of foreign affairs and second to Winston Churchill. With a very. Important you started. A little in the UK, but he. Uh, now remember there's a kind of. Uh, ineffective prime minister, so there's a general feeling that the civil service. Is has some culpability for the sort of, um, Britain in decline. So what. In what way was the civil service seen as the. As playing a part in that, because I would have thought. Lots of people would have said, well, that's, that's Anthony Eden. That's, you know, the. The politics of it not working, how has the civil service made culpable or seen as culpable? Well, the thing is that the UK, at the time, you need to think that they was facing a very difficult reconstruction period after the war. Although the UK was. It was not invaded and it was. And it was never occupied. Uh, nevertheless paid a very heavy. Burden. Uh, Anticipation. And he has had very high debt. Especially towards other countries. And especially there was the United States. Uh, it's economy. The war was not growing. With the same pace as good Appin economists. Uh, there was quite a lot of discontent. The literal. We're looking at other economies like the French. Um, having double growth rates. And triple growth rates. Um, and then we're asking, okay, what is it that this happening here? Uh, With the European economic community experiment was successful. And the UK lit or seen this and they knew it was successful, but they cannot participate because they had missed the train. Um, And all this. All these issues. Then we're creating. Uh, questions. About why is it that we are. Being left behind. And. It does not. Necessarily that they use. Civil service was at fault. But people were trying to find the explanations. And the explanation started from the personality of the prime minister, the way. Leadership style, the party in power. The way it. Okay. We have learned to do politics at the time. Um, the way the economy goes organized, the way the civil service was organized. Um, so there was, that was for the first time. Um, At highly critical movement. Reformist movement. Created and the civil service. I was at target. Also of this movement. And this is something that we see. This is a mechanism. That unravels. In many countries when they are in crisis. Whether the civil service is at fault or not at fault. This can be debated. Uh, this is something that we do see in many countries, for instance, in Greece. Uh, in 1981. A new part of the left came to power. The Panhellenic socialist movement. And, uh, the Panhellenic socialist movement was the first search party to gain power increase. Almost ever. Yeah. And, uh, One of the first things that they did is they did administrative reform. They established big ministry. A lot of fishers. Uh, they. Decided to do our way with general directors. Uh, who worked cardiac. Civil servants and they made them and they just made civil servants, only directors. They created. Political appointee positions like general secretaries and special secretaries and so on. And so forth. So they politicize the higher echelons of the seven. And of the executive triangle in order to be able to control it. Because they thought that the civil service at the time. Did not belong. Uh, politically. To the annual party. So the new party will was going to be in here. They've been doing this job. And we find the story in managed systems. Yeah, that have tried to push ahead. With reforming the civil service and introducing political advisers. So we've got the waves. Uh, that you've outlined and we've got a bit of a. A good sense. Now I think of. What the reasons behind, special advisors coming into being, and that. Becoming more institutionalized. What about before? Uh, Wilson in the sixties. Was there anything. Clearly the name or. Uh, or the kind of more formal idea of a special adviser. It didn't really seem to, it doesn't sound like existed, but was there anything before that, I assume that was still. Something where ministers had people who were more personally loyal to them, giving them political. Stickle advice. Right. So. As with any. Any kind of academic discussion. There's also. What's the kind of argument. Hmm. Um, and I have just. I get that, uh, The introduction of special advisors in InVigor K and under 64, was it January in January and innovation? Well, there are manacle shade was not. I am saying. Saying it was a. Andrew Blick. For the very good book. I suggest everybody to read it. If you want to understand the history of. Spans in the UK, which is. Uh, cold people who live in the dark. Uh, it was based on his PhD back in, uh, and he published a book back in 20 2004. Uh, it's the. The edge about the history of special advisors in British politics. Um, So I S I. I support his position. Uh, but there. Listen to helping many precursors. Precedents in the past. Advisors have been around. Um, and yeah. They have been around. Uh, I mean, w. What we need to understand is that. Um, At Pfizer. Uh, have been on round since. Since we are able to read. She started documents and historical. Yeah. Uh, And Pfizer's have been around in Kinglake court. They have advised. They have advised, but it is rulers for ages. Um, now. The reason why it is an innovation in 1964, it is because. Between. The 1850s. And the 1960s. There is a near monopoly of advice and implementation of policy by the civil service. And this was, this is not something that always existed like this. It was created. By the North Dakota Trevelyan. Uh, which started as a report in Nathan. And 55 and then in 1870. Premier Subaru. Gladstone. Uh, it became a lot of the state. Not everyone principle of the state. Yeah. Um, But even during that period. So in 1964, when. Spots I'd introduced them is intuition. The system is a kind of a shock because its challenges. It's a very principle on which. The civil service, the more than she. We'll service in the UK. It was built in the last 100 years. Which was a kind of. Innovation in the, I think. It was a kind of a. The progress. To go from this hotspot. Lots of fragmented. English bureaucracy. They used to exist in the UK before the 1850s to this. Unified profession. Allies administrative structures to help. The state. Yeah. But having said. Even during this period of near monopoly of, of the civil service. Uh, we. We have cases of outsiders. We'll provide that advice. And, uh, I think there are a few big examples. So for instance, Uh, in. The period between, uh, the early 19 hundreds and. And at the end of the first world war, the liberal prime minister, David Lloyd, George. Uh, he used to have personal appointees. They used to be like men. The critics will say that these are stuck on red, chronic. Uh, Roland was a famous shine. Basically promoted. The national insurance system. Um, Lloyd the George during the war. I had the secretariat. Would you use to be referred to as the garden shopper? And it was a garden Sabra. Why because they used to be some hearts in the back of the lawn of Dominic street. They used. To make the meetings. Um, and the guard themselves. Uh, just to do what advisors do today. They used to spin doctors. They used to write speeches. They used to research policy and so on. So forth, but this was an ad hoc situation. Similarly. Later much later. Ramsey MacDonald labor prime minister. Uh, he created an economic advisory council. And there you have the likes of canes. Uh, trade union leader. Bevin Clement Attlee participated in that. Um, then Winston Churchill had his own. Advisors. He had the surrounding. The prime minister's office. In the 1940s. Section. Which was about 10 to 12 people. Mainly quantums. Harold Wilson was a member of this economic section. Uh, and then he also had a statistical section, which was. Headed by physicists Lindemann. And included others like Donald MacDougall and so on and so forth. And beyond the section. He also had ad hoc. Outsiders. We'll come in and help with a government like games, William Beveridge. Who was a former fisherman. And then went to academia and then came back to the civil service and in 1942, He did his white paper on the welfare state. Nine and 47, you have Clement. Uh, she again has economists. He makes, um, In a unit, which. Uh, the central economic planning staff, CPS. Shaded by industrialist, Edwin, uh, Edwin Plowden. Uh, Winston churchill When he comes back Back again He creates a statistical section although this time it's a smaller run. And then you can have Harold macmillan We'll use a special Counselors and he also sets up a kind. kind of advisory Group of economists the name was national economic Development country. Yeah So Very often Where Outsiders What advising Prime minister Particular these outsiders What are usually very limited. limited in numbers And very high profile Uh mainly Economists What in the professional surrounding Uh economics But They lacked one Very basic feature Yeah Which is that they were not Temporary civil servants Of political partners. That was the big difference And this is why Uh Avail Wilson. The Experiment and the 1960s is actually a genuine And innovation their political administrative system Okay. According to my opinion. I think that brings One of the big questions Around special Advisors which is around The contentious uh debates Sometimes around special advisors and the possession. Uh has often been seen in in in in that way Over the years So why. why do you think it is seen in that uh has. has. been seen in that contentious This is a very interesting question and um, In the first session of Every seminar that i teach Uh, political advisors around the world Uh we have a kind of an exercise with the students where they need to search The internet And then they need to write down what is it What is their opinion about what is fair? Opinion about the Pfizer's, but also What do they see is their opinion on the internet Advisors And This is something i always do with the students and what they see is that they always find that the opinion of the internet is negative And most Of them Also come to class With a kind of a negative viewpoint. Indisposed To the issue. No. Now why This exists. Because of the role of the media And the media tent. Two Uh she advises Negatively Uh, For instance I had a very good student. Who did the research Uh on australia And the uk media. media in 20 18, 20 19. Actually he's crapped everything but Has been published on advisors at the time on broad shade and a. Tabloid And he found that 50% of Published media Items Mentioned advisers. Negatively Uh 40% neutral and only about 10% positive So you can see and read with a sample that Where the potential problem might be coming from Yeah. Uh and uh as a matter of fact There was a labor mp Right Back in the day Uh, him, She had mentioned that Spots are ranked alongside Pedophiles That was, That was his critic. We've Gone after that Uh so this is one issue. The second issue is that Advisors have been used In uh In the political debate in the in the battle of the parties Uh, And they have been used by both by this grant link. Internal opposition members So for instance cleared short She came up with the expression people who live in the dark Uh because she was not happy with the way tony blair was Uh running labor Uh both as Um, As a president of the party and also later on as a as a prime minister Uh but also criticism came from Uh veal position from the top, from the Torres. So in his autobiography John major has a part where he discusses His advisors and he is very concerned about the rising numbers the Russian. Asian costs And the fact that the compromise whitehall In partiality. And uh during the blair you know the new labor era Uh, the Tories weren't Quite Focal Critics of the special advisor experiment as this was shaped by uh, tony blair and his team another another um Sort of bad publicity is the various audits. Checks What happened? Within the academy Ability framework of failure The UK, for instance reports by the committee on standards in public life Public administration committee Parliament, Sean Sean And so forth So there are many sources Uh that feed The wave of uh let's say bad publicity And um There are also Many terms And many many kinds of words that, that we have seen uh, in the public like i mentioned people who live in the in the dark People Journalists My generals have written books like Sometimes of Spin and control freaks Uh some some people have called them kids. government Calming she has been referred to as a master of the dark art and so has Uh, Alistair Campbell, David cameron called cummings a career. Joe Maura. It was called a sneaky spider And so on and so forth so you said that like the, the words that are being used are Not Um, the best Now the question is What are the actual creative decisions and whether this criticisms Yeah Uh can stand the empirical test can pass the empirical test. Um and Um well This is something i deal with in my book so in my book i asked the question okay are. are. these people are monsters. The dark Art What are they big Flight. But i think guiding lights Some of my students have said And i'm trying to do this and by asking certain very specific questions So the first question is okay Are they too many Repairs your question Well sorry Presently in the uk there are not too many. Uh when you compare this with other countries Of course they are an innovation and a change to what existed before the 1960s. But When you see What exists in australia and canada In some nordic conscious. Of course i'm not going to mention pqs yeah actually Actually there are not too many adventures. There is a prison Of the system at the center and the pm but not with respect to ministers So second question do they live in the dark In my book I have made the transparency To measure darkness or light in those offices. And i have found out that officer's Across eight in different countries they can Reclassified in Dark rooms. Well you can not see anything inside Backrooms where you can see some things Front rooms where visibility is quite good And showrooms. Where everything is. It's a big Windows shield and you can see everything yeah So the uk is a front room in general. Uh it's a kind of a system that after many years of reform You know who is working there You know their names You know what they get paid for Um You know that they have to declare some of their interests Um uh you know that they have to declared. Uh When they talk to something or media individuals and so on and so forth It is a system that contrary to what we might believe It is Quite transparent This is not the most transparent. And there's another chapter of transparency but there's much better than another system Now What are these people much criticism comes from the fact that Um As john prescott Have said that Very young Unwise. Possibly incompetent yeah Male Uh, From an elite background Well To a big extent this is this is. Uh they're not teenyboppers. i mean usually they're in their thirties But that. It's still a gang Uh, that definitely from oxbridge by about 70%. Of that If you start a cohort If there's anything Of course. Um And uh, of course they are highly educated But One of the main issues is that they don't get much on the job training So to be a special advisor is not the fact that you have started BP in oxford doesn't mean that measure. it looks special advisor Um but again The fact that they don't get much doc training is not a problem Unique to the uk it's a problem with unique To all systems in the world and again i'm starting this My book And i see that there is a big lack of Political management training In the ranks Advisers. As Themselves But also if the civil servants Yeah So there's one thing to be trained The technicalities of the job that you can do and it's another thing to be able to be trained on managing the political process Yeah. So the policy process And another criticism is that Advisors exercise political control over the civil servants even politicians that control freaks And uh, that they push out Uh expertise Spin doctors And so on and so forth. Of course these people exist and these individuals exist. and the potentiality that this happens also exists Uh but if we look at the quantitative We are going to see that The people who work in political communication or the fraction of the body of advisors, most advisors usually work in the policy process that polish your workers And most of them are actually invisible All issue, process workers Yeah. Um so when we're talking about Spain and control freaks Like for instance for example I'm not, I'm not making a judgment And the same day. Just already got examples here Uh we're just thinking about very particular individuals that people have the iceberg We'll forget the body of the iceberg Um Just just to come in on on the point around transparency and then also the point around um Control around the civil service and then also some of them. The words around darkness Um Salton suspend. I think underlies some of that is that question around accountability and there's that there's that criticism of a lack which you might be allowed to come come on to accountability but um It'd be good to hear some of the kind of counter arguments to that and just to know what your research If a research has touched on that issue of accountability Yes This was one of the points that i was going to cover now which is One of the criticism is is that this active. Not elected And they are not accountable to anyone but the minister So there is a big lag. Of accountability With Any type of accountability So although the reason managerial accountability and the system which means that they are controlled by their boss The politician. This is the only kind of stronger. Accountability that usually exists This is the criticism. Uh and because they are controlled From their boss that usually means that they're never sanctioned. Or anything but that they do To a very big extent This is true To a very big extent Accountability systems And frameworks surrounding advisors Are usually characterize. Bye Soft laws. And soft instruments. Right But this doesn't mean Uh That fish is a kind of a uniform Um, A picture of what is happening through that time over time and across systems There have been many changes Also in accountability And accountability systems can also be um Categorized and scored. And more stringent once. And Waker runs And the uk again it's not one of the most stringent systems but there's not also one of the weakest system is actually one of the systems But by comparison What's happening elsewhere is quite Quite strict Uh it has developed Quite a big battery of Uh to constrain advisor behavior and conduct And there's a system that beyond the kind of managerial accountability You will find within the department and the minister You also have a strong parliamentary As scrutiny You have a strong non-regulatory scrutiny that comes from the media And occasionally Although this is not so much We can have also auditors. Uh, I've come into play Um Some systems Even better than think. okay for instance canada has one of the best Accountability systems in the world Which they fought In the aftermath of very big shocking scandals just only auditor's so the audience understands that A bit more is that sub setting up some kind of independent committee to look into You know the conduct of special advisors, is that the kind of thing Yeah I show usually a very often you might have Uh, An auditor is an independent body That exists outside of the department It exists outside of the parliament And this body performs and independent audit On a specific problem with behavior Of an allegation of misconduct in which advisors I've been involved Uh jason The uk is not so let's There's not something that you wouldn't see very often It has required an inactive audit system Eh Australia has a more active one there Canada Uh, These ideas for instance there's the australian national audit office with the Auditor-General and very often If you follow what has happening with advisors in australia you will see that manual. The scandals in which they have been involved Uh they have been uh, Scrutinized Following media. Legations by this. S a n a o Office. Along with And Very often and along with another government So to summarize Yes in general we can make a general claim that accountability frameworks are still quite Week by comparison to what happened with civil servants Politicians. But they are in the making And there are many steps Uh, Being taken For them to be improved Yeah. Of course the problem we need to understand is that The office of heads of government and prime minister Um and this is their secret garden And they have a vested interest or not Alarmed too much transparency and not to learn. And the ability checks And that secret garden so there's always this clash There's always this clash. Yeah there is that tension isn't Between Accountability and transparency but then there's uh, will be a desire in the policymaking process to be able to Think about issues. issues work through issues and be able to do that No not always At Every single meeting you. No it's needing needing to be public There's a question you know would that be would that actually be You know best practice you know helpful As there's attention though isn't that? As if any big debate Yeah The making everything Public. We'll actually civilize Uh the democratic process And there are many phds on. And the research on this that show that maybe not. Maybe it is not going to happen maybe what is going to happen is. As long as you open up the secret garden Maybe everybody is It's a very interesting phd that Trust for politics so everybody will be dressed Or politics and public That will start Making statements that are more rounded up Less coordinators Because it will be looking at the audience outside Um, Rather than shorting the problem inside the shedding, which is more conducive to having this kind of negotiation So there are four ways of shameless. Evidence And uh from what i've seen also in my research is that with respect to disclosing Documents that. In the office Uh there's Not much movement fair In the majority of officers around the world The secrecy Well that's happening in the backstage has been maintained You might have Transparency with respect to more inquiry. These people how much do they get paid Whether they're private interests conflict of interests asha All these things you might be able to know And many in managed systems increasingly You get to learn more about this but With respect to finding out what is actually being discussed There are examples Closest from all kinds of friends There. and uh i don't think this is something that is going to. to change Easy If i told him At least in the near future so the last question i had was on Looking forward now so where do you see um Looking ahead kind of the future and special advisors might go particularly In the uk context do you see that role or that influence? Shifting or changing At all or do you see more of a chance for stability or or something in between At finances or she had to stay. So i do not see a system whereby we're going to go back To the near monopoly of the civil service and providing advice Systems. Did she advise you of the Systems All over the world At it becoming increasingly complex increasingly horizontal And with the participation of multiple actors In a way they become more democratic And in a way all the answers Who participate in giving advice they need to complete For the video of the minister Uh, In this way in this respect I. I. see advisor sustain as important matters in the system. Um i see the System stabilizing I don't shift the system growing At least for now Uh and stabilizing in a system whereby the prime minister has a big office Which a bit the ranch, like Traditional copy near that we've seen System short a bit like a presentation stuff that we've seen the us Uh And ministers who have 2, 3, 4 special advisors we help Uh, with political communication Politics. And the policy process and. This balance i It remains in the system Um and one of the Reasons why i think it will remain The system is because Priming decision I Do not have an interest In increasing the political capacity Of ministers And then If it's basically like giving a present. Uh to their future Competitors And so i don't see this. Happening For now But having said this we need to keep in mind that there is a structural pressure for Increasing political capacity. Uh inside the system and lincoln more Two constituencies Thank you sir. So was there anything Um alice that you'd like to say or cover that we that we didn't have a chance to um So far before we wrap things up I would like to thank you for the invitation it was a very interesting talk I think we'll cover a lot of topics Uh, Much food for thought for everybody. Annual who's interested I will Provide also somebody shortages. if somebody wants to read More extensively about special advisors Okay Um And uh i would definitely suggest the book by andrew blick And also definitely the book by ben young and robert hazel On special advisors configure Katie. that was This one was published In 2014, about 10 years after Andrew Blake. And uh i would say that these are two very good books for somebody who wants to Have a good advance introduction about what is going on And of course my book Constantly coming out in seven eight months Let's see about that Very exciting Thanks so much Yeah. He wants to just say as well like i found It's a very very interesting In Conversation and yeah thanks so much for um, giving up the time on. On us on a sunday evening as well No last two to. to have a have a chat about this

People on this episode

Contributor

Harry White

Host