The role of a special adviser (Spad) in Westminster - BBC News BBC News Media playback is unsupported on your device The role of a special adviser (Spad) in Westminster 19 March 2012 Last updated at 13:47 GMT David Cameron criticised the number of political appointees known as special advisers (Spads) under Labour and promised to scale them back - but the number has gone up under the coalition. Giles Dilnot looks into the role and finds out why the public only hears about those in trouble. Stand up, you Spads, and be accountable - Telegraph Stand up, you Spads, and be accountable The Government’s special advisers are too well protected for the power they wield. Adam Smith: Spads should be made to be more open about their role Photo: PA Comments They are among the most shadowy figures in government. They sit at the right hand of Cabinet ministers and some wield more influence than the most senior civil servants, yet their names are rarely known outside Whitehall. They are unelected and unaccountable to either the public or Parliament. They are the chosen few, though how they come to be chosen is something of a mystery.

Their privileged positions are never advertised, but increasingly the posts they hold lead to the very top of politics. They are government special advisers – or “Spads” – and right now they are under the spotlight. One of their number, Adam Smith, Spad to Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, was found to have been far too close to the Murdoch empire. Not only did Mr Smith have to resign but Labour MPs now want the head of his former boss. This week the Prime Minister, clearly angry, was forced to go to the Commons to defend Mr Hunt. The ongoing row raises serious questions about the role of Spads, who they are, how they are appointed and what should be done to stop them causing havoc. Mr Smith is far from being the first Spad to embarrass his political masters. Under Labour, bad Spads included Damian “McPoison” McBride, who ran smear campaigns, and Jo Moore, who declared 9/11 a “good day to bury bad news”. Then there was Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s press secretary, whose duties included sexing up intelligence dossiers.

The Coalition’s dubious Spads have included the No 10 press secretary and former News of the World editor Andy Coulson – ties to the Murdoch empire again – and Adam Werritty. Mr Werritty’s problem was that he wasn’t a Spad to the then defence secretary, Liam Fox, but he acted like one. This caused outrage – proof perhaps of the muddle there is over Spads. Related Articles Sketch: Boris Johnson, London's Justin Bieber 02 May 2012 Spads are meant to help senior ministers with the kind of political matters that civil servants cannot touch, whether briefing the media or injecting a party line into policy. Nearly everyone agrees that, as such, they play a crucial role. So what goes wrong? One problem is that they are… well, cronies. To become a Spad you need to know someone in the party of your choice who will take you on. A survey by the magazine Civil Service World found that 89 per cent of the current crop of Spads had worked for their party HQ or for an MP. Most Spads are young with little experience of anything much. They tend to have been in marketing, lobbying or media relations before joining the Westminster bubble.

Once in government, they are thrown in at the deep end: they have no training, they are not accountable to anyone except their ministers and the jobs they do vary enormously from one department to another. The really scary thing is that so many Spads go on to hold the highest offices: David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all started as Spads, and all are still young. Roy Hodgson, the new England manager, is 64. A trend for people of proven ability in government would be welcome. In the past, Labour chancellor Denis Healey had been the beach-master at Anzio. Today, Labour leaders are more likely to be asked whose side they were on in the war between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. If Spads are the leaders of the future, a rethink is needed urgently, particularly given the public’s distrust of the political elite. For a start, it may be time for Spads to come out of the dark – and not just when they are at the centre of a scandal. The Commons’ Public Administration Select Committee is embarking on an inquiry into Spads. One of the questions it will ask is whether they should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by MPs.

This might enable those of a more dubious character to be weeded out early on. Had Andy Coulson faced the prospect of being cross-examined by MPs, Mr Cameron might have thought better of appointing him. Public scrutiny could also encourage the idea that Spads should have some experience and achievements to their name in other fields besides politics, before they are given jobs in the heart of government. Once appointed, they could appear regularly before MPs. Spads have to command the confidence of their ministers and they need to share their political views. Yet why should the jobs not be advertised? This would widen the pool and be far fairer. The parties could reject those deemed unsuitable. As it is, the likes of Nick Clegg are always complaining about the wicked middle classes giving internships to the sons and daughters of people they know. Let them follow the same even-handed principles with jobs that are in their gift. We could even look at Spads being picked from the ranks of elected backbench MPs. We have far too many junior ministers. Indeed, civil servants often have to spend time inventing things for this lowly form of ministerial life to do.

Cut the number of junior ministers – in line with the planned cut in the number of MPs – and give promising backbenchers Spad jobs. It would at least close the democratic deficit. Appraisals for Spads, by civil servants reporting to ministers, might also help to regulate this increasingly important cadre. The Coalition started by promising to restrict the number of Spads but the numbers – 81, at the last count – are now back up above where they were when Labour left office. The Coalition should not wait for the next scandal. Spads should be brought out of the shadows now. The role of a special adviser (Spad) in Westminster - BBC News BBC News Media playback is unsupported on your device The role of a special adviser (Spad) in Westminster 19 March 2012 Last updated at 13:47 GMT David Cameron criticised the number of political appointees known as special advisers (Spads) under Labour and promised to scale them back - but the number has gone up under the coalition. Giles Dilnot looks into the role and finds out why the public only hears about those in trouble.

SpAd’s | caltonjock caltonjock Massive increase in the number of SPAD’s and Spin Doctors in the employ of the government at taxpayers expense 16 July 2009: there were 74 Special Advisers in post at Westminster providing advice to government ministers at a cost of £5.9million to the taxpayer. By 18 December 2015: the number of SPAD’s has risen to 97 . at a cost of £11.1million. In addition to SPAD’s the government employs “spin doctors” whose role is to put a positive face to anything the government might do regardless of truth or probity. There are now in excess of 100 in employment, an increase of 30 since the Tory government came to power in 2010. Ed Milliband & SpAd Katie Myler Roles and responsiblities of the SpAd (Special Adviser) SpAd’s are paid employees of the State and are – subject to specified exceptions – required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code.” which states that the highest standards of conduct are expected of special advisers. i.

“Specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life. ii. “Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing minister. iii. “Special advisers…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks.” iv “All contacts with news media should be authorized, in advance by the appointing minister.” But the world of the SpAd is murky. They are accountable only to the Minister that appointed them. There is no formal recruitment process or interview. How does it work? Nepotism. A minster decides he needs a SpAd. He gets in touch with David Cameron’s office and obtains permission to appoint one. Approval granted the minister contacts an old friend from University who might be between jobs and offers him the post. The person accepts. The following Monday the new SpAd reports for duty on a salary of between £60 -£155,000K. Nice if you know the right people.

Norman Lamont and his young SpAd Sir Jeremy (Cover-up) Heywood at it again Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Office Supremo and Head of the Civil Service,( nicknamed Sir Cover Up after preventing Chilcott Iraq War inquiry from seeing letters and records of phone calls between Mr Blair and Mr Bush) has been caught up in a row over bending the rules of the Civil Service by permitting Cabinet Office, “special advisers” (pseudo civil servants) to campaign in the recent Rochester by-election. Labour’s Cabinet Office spokesman Jon Ashworth said: ‘There are serious question marks here which Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood needs to clear up. I will be asking him to provide answers about what guidance has been given.’ Sir Jeremy is a powerful force at No10. David Cameron once joked: ‘Remind me, Jeremy, do you work for me or do I work for you?’ Critics claim he was complicit in the culture of ‘sofa government’ when Tony Blair was PM. He was nicknamed Sir Cover-up after preventing the Iraq War inquiry from seeing letters and records of phone calls between Mr Blair and George W Bush in the run-up to the conflict.

Wielding Power in the Sewers of Westminster Clare Short disparagingly dubbed them the “people who live in the dark”. They can often be spotted darting through the television studios of Westminster with their minister, briefing papers under arm and Blackberry in hand. Young, sharp and driven, they are often politicians-in-waiting – among former “spads” are Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and Labour’s Miliband brothers, David and Ed. Employed as temporary civil servants, they do not have to be politically impartial like their civil service colleagues. They link together the minister, the party and the department. They are also the bridge between the neutral civil service and politicians. They help write speeches, some are policy wonks, while others focus on the media. If a journalist wants to know what a cabinet minister thinks or understand what a policy is about, a call to the special adviser is one of the first ones to make. But they are sometimes sneered at by some journalists.

Michael Jacobs, a former special adviser to Gordon Brown, told the BBC that “while ministers needed civil servants for impartial advice, they needed special advisers to help them to make political judgements and consider different options: “They are a sort of lubricant in the machine.” Special advisers first became a permanent fixture in Whitehall in the 1970s. But their number ballooned under Labour. In 1996 there were 38 working in government, costing the taxpayer £1.8m. In 2004 the number peaked at 84 and in 2008/9 there were 74, at a cost of £5.9m. But their expanded ranks prompted concern about their role. Critics voiced concern that a more American, politically driven civil service was sneaking in via the special advisers and lines of accountability were being blurred. An e-mail sent by special adviser Jo Moore after the terror attacks in the US on 11 September 2001 saying it would be a good time “to bury” bad news triggered a number of reviews into their role and power.

Another “spad”-related scandal – the discovery that Damian McBride was smearing senior Conservatives in e-mails – prompted Gordon Brown to ask the cabinet secretary to review the rules governing their behaviour. Political advisers are said to be as powerful as cabinet ministers for the influence they wield on government policy. 2015/2016: 97 *Con/LibDem coalition 20 SpAd’s appointed to support Lib Dem’s So under the tory government, special advisers continue to roam the corridors of Whitehall. Their close relationships to cabinet ministers and lobby correspondents give them influence – an influence that can hatch into a political career later on. A successful stint as a “SpAd” can be a crucial political apprenticeship – as many of the current crop of professional politicians can testify – so long as they stay in the dark. Brown and his SpAd Damian McBride The Government’s special advisers are too well protected for the power they wield. They need be accountable – They are among the most shadowy figures in government. They sit at the right hand of Cabinet ministers and some wield more influence than the most senior civil servants, yet their names are rarely known outside Whitehall.

They are unelected and unaccountable to either the public or Parliament. They are the chosen few, though how they come to be chosen is something of a mystery. Their privileged positions are never advertised, but increasingly the posts they hold lead to the very top of politics. They are government special advisers – or “Spads” – and right now they are under the spotlight. One of their number, Adam Smith, Spad to Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, was found to have been far too close to the Murdoch empire. Not only did Mr Smith have to resign but Labour MPs now want the head of his former boss. This week the Prime Minister, clearly angry, was forced to go to the Commons to defend Mr Hunt. The ongoing row raises serious questions about the role of Spads, who they are, how they are appointed and what should be done to stop them causing havoc. Mr Smith is far from being the first Spad to embarrass his political masters. Under Labour, bad Spads included Damian “McPoison” McBride, who ran smear campaigns, and Jo Moore, who declared 9/11 a “good day to bury bad news”.

Then there was Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s press secretary, whose duties included sexing up intelligence dossiers. The Coalition’s dubious Spads have included the No 10 press secretary and former News of the World editor Andy Coulson – ties to the Murdoch empire again – and Adam Werritty. Mr Werritty’s problem was that he wasn’t a Spad to the then defense secretary, Liam Fox, but he acted like one. This caused outrage – proof perhaps of the muddle there is over Spads. Spads are meant to help senior ministers with the kind of political matters that civil servants cannot touch, whether briefing the media or injecting a party line into policy. Nearly everyone agrees that, as such, they play a crucial role. So what goes wrong? One problem is that they are… well, cronies. To become a Spad you need to know someone in the party of your choice who will take you on. A survey by the magazine Civil Service World found that 89 per cent of the current crop of Spads had worked for their party HQ or for an MP. Most Spads are young with little experience of anything much.

They tend to have been in marketing, lobbying or media relations before joining the Westminster bubble. Once in government, they are thrown in at the deep end: they have no training, they are not accountable to anyone except their ministers and the jobs they do vary enormously from one department to another. The really scary thing is that so many Spads go on to hold the highest offices: David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all started as Spads, and all are still young. A trend for people of proven ability in government would be welcome. In the past, Labour chancellor Denis Healey had been the beach-master at Anzio. Today, Labour leaders are more likely to be asked whose side they were on in the war between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. If Spads are the leaders of the future, a rethink is needed urgently, particularly given the public’s distrust of the political elite. For a start, it may be time for Spads to come out of the dark – and not just when they are at the centre of a scandal. The Commons’ Public Administration Select Committee is embarking on an inquiry into Spads.

One of the questions it will ask is whether they should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by MPs. This might enable those of a more dubious character to be weeded out early on. Had Andy Coulson faced the prospect of being cross-examined by MPs, Mr Cameron might have thought better of appointing him. Public scrutiny could also encourage the idea that Spads should have some experience and achievements to their name in other fields besides politics, before they are given jobs in the heart of government. Once appointed, they could appear regularly before MPs. Spads have to command the confidence of their ministers and they need to share their political views. Yet why should the jobs not be advertised? This would widen the pool and be far fairer. The parties could reject those deemed unsuitable. As it is, the likes of Nick Clegg are always complaining about the wicked middle classes giving internships to the sons and daughters of people they know. Let them follow the same even-handed principles with jobs that are in their gift. We could even look at Spads being picked from the ranks of elected backbench MPs. We have far too many junior ministers. Indeed, civil servants often have to spend time inventing things for this lowly form of ministerial life to do.

Cut the number of junior ministers – in line with the planned cut in the number of MPs – and give promising backbenchers Spad jobs. It would at least close the democratic deficit. Appraisals for Spads, by civil servants reporting to ministers, might also help to regulate this increasingly important cadre. The Coalition started by promising to restrict the number of Spads but the numbers are now well in excess of where they were when Labour left office. The Tory government should not wait for the next scandal. Spads should be brought out of the shadows now. Osborne and his SpAd Rupert Harrison Pay and Other Forms of Remuneration David Cameron and Nick Clegg broke their promise to curb the numbers of highly-paid special advisers. In opposition Cameron promised to ‘cut the cost of politics’ and the coalition agreement said there would be a ‘limit’ on the number of special advisers. In opposition Nick Clegg said. “special advisers shouldn’t be paid for by the public”. But as soon as he got his feet under the Cabinet table, he broke his word.’ George Osborne froze the wages of six million public sector workers at the time the Coalition came to power, plunging many into poverty under his cruel austerity drive.

Yet the heartless Chancellor handed one of the chief architects of the public sector pay freeze, fellow Old Etonian, friend and special adviser Rupert Harrison, a 19% inflation-busting increase boosting the Chief of Staff’s £80,000 salary by £15,000 to £95,000. Not to be outdone, Alexander bumped up the pay of his own adviser Will de Peyer by 16 per cent to £75,000 – while bringing in another special adviser earning £95,000. The Cabinet Office list showed the employ of 26 special advisers in Downing Street of which six are paid £100,000 or more, topped by Cameron’s: Chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn £140K Director of Communications, Craig Oliver £140K Deputy Head of the No 10 Policy Unit, Christopher Lockwood £ 134K Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, Graeme Wilson £110K Deputy Chief of Staff, Kate Fall £100K Director of Communications (Mr Clegg), Steve Lotinga £105K. Plus another 3 SpAd’s.

Plus 16 special advisers for Lib/Dem ministers Total 20. Political creatures: Adam Smith (left), Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser, resigned following allegations that he held inappropriate discussions with News Corporation while it was bidding to take over BSkyB Is There Any Way Out of This Mess? A senior (retired) civil servant asked to comment said “When I was a civil servant I was expected to keep my political opinions to myself. It was also expected, having signed the Official Secrets Act, that I would not reveal information to which I was privy because of my job. It seems to me that there is a basic conflict of interest here. Should SPADs be paid for put of the public purse? If so, is it compatible with public interest for them to stand for a political interest anyway? The employment of SpAd’s at the expense of the taxpayer should be discontinued and replaced with civil servants entrants with specialist expertise.” If you want to get to the top in politics regardless of talent !! Get a job as a SpAd to a minister SPAD - What does SPAD stand for? The Free Dictionary SPAD - What does SPAD stand for? The Free Dictionary Also found in: Dictionary , Wikipedia .

Acronym Simple Plastic Airplane Design (radio control aircraft hobby) SPAD Soil and Plant Analyzer Development (Japan) SPAD Service Platform Application Development (Sprint) SPAD Sonobuoy Precision Aerial Delivery (KaZak Composites, Inc.) SPAD Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology SPAD SPAD Standard Payment Amount per Discharge (healthcare) Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us , add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content . Link to this page: Copyright © 2003-2017 Farlex, Inc Disclaimer All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. A SpAd's eye view – a summary - wacomms wacomms by Lizzie Wills We were delighted to host two former government special advisers for a discussion this morning on the role of SpAds in coalition government.

We were pleased to be joined by Giles Wilkes, former Liberal Democrat Special Adviser to Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Nick Hillman, former Conservative Special Adviser to David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who both gave an unvarnished insight into the roles and responsibilities of the SpAds who have worked with the Coalition 2010, and made some thoughtful recommendations as to how businesses can best engage with special advisers to make the most of their influence at the heart of government. With the outcome of the next election still too close to call, the possibility of a further five years under coalition government is looking a real possibility. In 2010, with the formation of the first peacetime coalition since the 1930s, ministers, civil servants and their advisers all had to find new ways of working, learning as they went along how to work with another party whose policies they had spent an entire election campaign denouncing on the doorstep and in the national press. 2015 will be different.

The civil service will have had five years to develop protocols and ways of working that ensure that, in the event of another coalition (of whatever colour), there will be a smoother transition to power. Similarly, ministers and their advisers will have something of a template for how to work effectively with another party (and examples of where these relationships have broken down will also prove a useful tool in helping all the parties in navigating the complex relationships with and between coalition parties, departments and individuals). Giles Wilkes, who began working as an adviser to the Business Secretary in May 2010, said he was struck by the scale of non-communication across all levels of government. Giles believes that the role of the SpAd has evolved partially to deal with this – to smooth over the cracks in communication and to act as a mediator between squabbling government departments. Despite this, Giles was adamant that he wanted to see more coalition governments in the future (perhaps an unsurprising for a Liberal Democrat, looking at current polls), and that within the BIS department at least, there was a collaborative atmosphere (driven partially by the advisers and ministers themselves, but also by the personality and character of the department itself).

Giles warned against the wider public affairs industry assuming that the realities of life as a SpAd reflect the media-obsessed advisers portrayed in fictional Westminster comedy The Thick of It. In reality, SpAds are less concerned with the day to day minutiae of politics, but in working to ensure that the policies put together by their department work in practice with minimal unintended or unforeseen consequences. Which is why, says Giles, lobbying is such an important part of good policymaking. It flags up the potential pitfalls that had not been identified from within Westminster and Whitehall, and allows policymakers to understand the long-term effects of their political decisions on the people upon whom it will impact the most. Nick Hillman, who recently left the business department to become director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, agrees that those SpAds that can work collaboratively across party lines, and with civil servants and other members of a minister’s team, are more likely to be effective in getting things done. That being said, however, there is certainly a role for the more assertive advisers. They can be equally as effective, according to Nick, though tend to have a higher burnt out rate. There have certainly been a few high profile examples in recent months that seem to support this analysis.

Nick believes there are three types of special adviser in Westminster – wonks (the category in which Nick places himself and Giles), who focus on making sure policy initiatives are in tune with the wider political agenda, and making sure that they will work in practice; the ‘spinners’, who largely deal with the media side of the operation; and the ‘bag carriers’ – a derogatory term for those advisers who arguably play one of the most important roles to a minister – making sure they are at the right place at the right time, and ensuring that their minister remains gaffe-free as far as possible and doesn’t contradict their party line (or themselves). Each of these types of SpAd (some will be a combination of two or three types) all have one important thing in common, argues Nick. They will all be being pulled in slightly different directions.

SpAds have a range of different loyalities which they need to effectively balance if they are to successfully navigate life in government – to their department (who thinks SpAds are ‘their’ person in Whitehall), to their minister (who believes their SpAd’s main role is to protect their reputation and make sure they get good coverage in the media) and to Number 10 or the DPM’s office (who believe that SpAds are their eyes and ears in each department). With this in mind, Nick made a number of recommendations as to how businesses could most effectively engage with special advisers to best make their case: 1. Don’t regard SpAds as being totally party political. They are more than party political creatures and their primary focus is on good policymaking. In this sense they are more like departmental permanent secretaries than overtly political animals. 2. When there are problems in government policymaking it is usually more likely to be because of cock-up rather than conspiracy. Civil servants are often not in the same post for longer than a year or two and often do not have an in-depth grasp of the policy area or how policy changes could impact upon businesses.

SpAds can often be in position longer than civil servants and can have a better understanding of the particular policy area, particularly if they are in regular communication with the industries and businesses which are affected. 3. SpAds are people too. It is important for business to keep lines of communication open with advisers, who will always have a soft spot for businesses that are able to give them a heads up about an announcement or engage with them in opposition. 4. SpAds are not all powerful in government, and often do not have the power to halt, reverse of sometimes even impact upon a policy decision, particularly if it is a high government priority, or if it is being dealt with by a quango. Businesses seeking to engage on a particular issue should look at who it is being dealt with by, and at what level of government, and tailor their approach accordingly. 5. Party conferences are often not used well to engage with special advisers. A rushed five minute conversation in a hotel lobby will always be less effective than a one-to-one meeting in Westminster when both sides have set aside dedicated time to discuss an issue.

Whilst Giles and Nick both had their own perspectives on their time working at the centre of government, and about the role of special advisers, there were some clear areas of agreement. The importance of developing human connections with other SpAds, ministers and wider departmental colleagues was one. The important diplomatic role played by SpAds, and their centrality in keeping effective lines of communication open between minsters is another. They both also questioned the impact of Select Committees in holding government departments to account, suggesting that their significance, whilst slowly increasing, has been overstated. They also agreed that politicians, who talk up the importance of joined-up, outcomes focused policymaking, are infrequently sufficiently concerned with the delivery of policy on the ground. Once the policy has been developed and announced, there is sometimes a lack of follow-up and focus on making the policy deliver the outcomes it was originally designed to bring about. A final topic that unsurprisingly brought about less agreement was the outcome of the general election next May. For Giles, the result is too close to call, though suggests that the polls (and the bookies) have the odds about right on each potential outcome.

Nick was more bullish, suggesting that the Conservative position is being underestimated, both in terms of how many votes a continuously improving economy will deliver on polling day, but also the extent of the Conservatives’ desire for a single party government after 2015. Whatever the result next May, we know that the special advisers that the new (or returning) ministers bring with them will help to shape policymaking in a significant and tangible way, and should be seen as an important part of the Westminster machinery. To see what everyone was tweeting about the event search #WA_spad or go to @WA_Comms on Twitter. about the author Lizzie Wills Associate Director lizziewills@wacomms.co.uk Lizzie is a political risk expert who helps to lead our Investor Services practice. Drawing on her eight years of experience Lizzie advises clients on policy risk, strategy and messaging. She is skilled at guiding clients through highly regulated and complex policy environments. As well as providing due diligence, she has led many successful campaigns for corporate clients in financial services, transport, FMCG and children’s services. Lizzie started her career working in parliament with David Laws MP, and then worked for two other consultancies.

She currently sits on the executive committee of Women in Public Affairs, an industry group addressing gender imbalance in politics. Lizzie is currently taking classes in Mandarin and loves Bikram yoga and sunny evenings at the pub. WA Spads: Who they are, what they do, why they exist—and why they will continue to be appointed | The Constitution Unit Blog The Constitution Unit Blog Spads: Who they are, what they do, why they exist—and why they will continue to be appointed Posted on by bymyong What are spads, said everywoman, and would not stay for answer. Everyone knows about certain notorious special advisers— Alastair Campbell , spin doctor extraordinaire; Damien McBride , attack dog for Gordon Brown; and Jo Moore , forever infamous for sending an email around on 11 September 2001 saying, “today is a good day for burying bad news.” [1] Under the Cameron-Clegg administration, media reports on the whole remain fairly hostile . There have been some dissenting voices, calling for more spads. Jahan Ganesh in Prospect (££); Tim Montgomerie on ConservativeHome ; our esteemed (and rather more flush) colleagues at the Institute for Government as well.

The recent reconfiguration of No 10’s policy unit suggests the coalition is feeling the absence of spads. But what are special advisers, and what exactly do they do? There is surprisingly little on this, academically. A technical definition: they are temporary civil servants, drawn from outside the traditional civil service structure, and subject to the patronage of ministers for whom they work. In layman terms, civil servants are appointed through open competition and promoted by merit. Special advisers, on the other hand, are appointed personally by ministers, to work for those ministers; when a minister leaves, the spad leaves with them. They may or may not have policy expertise. What do spads do? Most think of them as spin doctors, but this is too crude. Maria Maley , at the Australian National University, has identified five basic functions: Personal support: managing the minister’s time, determining priorities Political support: in parliament, within the party, etc Communication: media management, but also management of relations with other key actors Policy matters: initiatives, development, implementation Executive coordination: between portfolios and between ministries. The focus has always been on ‘spin’, but the truth is we don’t know what the majority of spads do.

Some clearly are spin doctors (Alastair Campbell), but others are not (Jonathan Powell’s key ‘function’ would have been executive coordination; Andrew Adonis perhaps for his policy knowledge). There are usually about 75 spads in any one year: we tend only to hear about a tiny few, usually those at the centre; not those in departments. Spads are often thought of as bright young things with an eye to a political post in the future. They are often thought to be former parliamentary researchers or think tankers. Former special advisers include David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Jack Straw … the list goes on. But again: we don’t know if the labels ‘bright young thing’/ ‘political careerist’ are appropriate because no one yet has studied them in detail in the UK (see below for the exceptions). A final point, before this post gets too long. The focus has always been on spads, and their apparent malign influence—but there is a prior question: why do ministers keep appointing spads? Well—again, we don’t know the actual reasons. But we can guess. Spads exist because there is a demand for them.

And there are at least three reasons why ministers may want to appoint spads: Ministers are overloaded. [2] They just have too much to do—so spads help ministers to determine their priorities. being (ostensibly) neutral, civil servants cannot offer ‘political’ advice; spads, often being appointed for their political qualities, can. Ministers want to increase the ‘responsiveness’ of the civil service, which is seen as passive and obstructive; spads can drive the machine because they exist outside the civil service. There may be a fourth reason: coalition government. Coalition government may require greater negotiation between parties; spads may provide that liaison function. Whether or not these reasons are legitimate reasons is another story. But these are likely to be the reasons ministers will give in appointing special advisers. We should be asking ministers what they think special advisers are for, and to what extent they fulfil this function (or functions). It is time we moved on from talking about spads in a largely negative manner and asking whether there are too many, to asking why are they there, how they contribute, and whether they can improve ministerial effectiveness.

Background The Constitution Unit has been working on a grant proposal on special advisers, and so it seemed appropriate to blog on this. For those really interested in spads, there is Andrew Blick’s excellent text . On the internet, start with the House of Commons’ library research note ; or the Public Administration Select Committee’s 2001 report, Special Advisers: Boon or Bane , which is still good value. There’s also an excellent article by a former spad to Jack Straw here , which gives an insight into a spad’s everyday life. The Powerbase website has (very) uneven coverage of special advisers. On what ministers do, and ought to do, there is the (so-so) Public Administration Select Committee report What Do Ministers Do? EDIT 14/04/11: a very interesting report on the coalition’s spads here: The Rise Of The Spad: How Many Ministers Or Shadow Ministers Have Had Proper Jobs? | The Huffington Post The Rise Of The Spad: How Many Ministers Or Shadow Ministers Have Had Proper Jobs?

13/11/2013 15:43 | Updated 13 November 2013 210 Chris York Senior Editor, The Huffington Post UK Much has been made this week of John Major's comments on the dominance of the upper echelons of power in Britain by the privately educated and affluent middle classes. Despite himself heading a cabinet that was 70% privately educated , his words once again shone a spotlight on the social make-up of those that govern us. But wealth and education are not the only issues here. What about the employment backgrounds of those who represent us? And the so-called 'professionalisation' of politics? Poles apart Politicians from all parties are regularly criticised for not being able to relate to the plight of the common Brit as they swan around Westminster on £65K a year and who knows what on expenses. In recent years, we have witnessed the 'rise of the spad' - the special advisers who went from carrying ministers' bags to becoming MPs and then ministers themselves.

The leaders of all three major political parties - prime minister David Cameron, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and leader of the opposition Ed Miliband - were all spads prior to securing seats in the Commons. So, how many cabinet and shadow ministers can claim to have worked in the 'real world', rather than the cosy political bubble of Westminster? A HuffPost UK analysis of the employment backgrounds of the 33 people who attend cabinet found that 11 of those ministers (33%) worked, at some stage, as special advisers, political researchers or speechwriters before being elected to parliament. For Labour, it's an even higher proportion: the current shadow cabinet consists of 32 people, of whom 14 (44%) worked in politics, as spads or researchers, before joining the Commons or the Lords. Here is the full list of ex-spads in cabinet.

1 Prime Minister David Cameron PA Special advisor to Norman Lamont when he was chancellor 2 Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg PA Policy adviser and speech writer to EU commissioner Leon Brittan 3 Chancellor George Osborne Joined the Conservative Research Department in 1994 before working as special adviser to Douglas Hogg 4 Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury PA Press officer with the Scottish Liberal Democrats 5 Dr Vince Cable Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade PA Special advisor to the then Labour industry secretary John Smith in the 1970s then went on to work for Shell as chief economist 6 Lord Hill, Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Special advisor to Kenneth Clarke 7 Andrew Lansley, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal PA Ran the Conservative Research Department 8 Oliver Letwin, Minister for Government Policy PA Member of Margaret Thatcher's policy unit 9 David Laws, Minister of State for Cabinet Office, Minister of State for Schools PA Economic adviser to the Liberal Democrats and Director of Policy and Research after a five year banking career 10 David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science PA Was a researcher for Nigel Lawson and Margaret Thatcher 

11 Greg Clark, Minister of State for Cabinet Office (Cities and Constitution) PA Special advisor to Ian Lang And here is the full list of ex-spads in the shadow cabinet.

1 Ed Miliband, Labour Leader PA Worked for Harriet Harman, before becoming special advisor to Gordon Brown 2 Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor PA Economic adviser to Gordon Brown in opposition and in government (after a stint in journalism) 3 Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary PA Speechwriter and parliamentary researcher for Gordon Brown before brief stint as a solicitor 4 Labour shadow cabinet PA Economic policy researcher for then shadow chancellor John Smith and policy advisor to Harriet Harman before brief stint as a journalist 5 Andy Burnham, Shadow Secretary of State for Health PA 6 Jim Murphy, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development PA Special projects manager of the Scottish Labour Party 7 Hilary Benn, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government PA Special advisor to then education secretary David Blunkettt 8 Owen Smith, Shadow Secretary of State for Wales PA Special adviser to then secretary of state for Wales Paul Murphy 9 Michael Dugher, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office PA Chief political spokesman for Gordon Brown in Downing Street 10 Chris Leslie, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

PA Political research assistant in Bradford 11 Baroness Royall, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords PA Special adviser to Neil Kinnock in the 1980s 12 Emma Reynolds, Shadow Minister for Housing PA Political adviser to Robin Cook and special advisor to Geoff Hoon 13 Lord Wood Advisor to Gordon Brown in Downing Street and Ed Miliband in opposition 14 Jon Cruddas, Coordinator of the Labour Party Policy Review PA Deputy political secretary to then Prime Minister Tony Blair It should be pointed out some of those listed have also worked outside of the Westminster village - but typically in professions such as banking, law and journalism; that is, industries that tend to be dominated by those from privately-educated and middle-class backgrounds.

As well as a number of ministers and shadow ministers who started their political careers as councillors, other notable exceptions to the 'rise of the spad' phenomenon include: Lord Bassam, Opposition chief whip - a squatter and also founder of the Squatter's Union Margaret Curran, shadow Scottish secretary - worked as a community worker Ivan Lewis, shadow international development secretary - worked in the voluntary sector for 11 years including for the Contact Community Care Group Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary - second lieutenant in the Scot's Guard Patrick McLoughlin, transport ecretary - a former miner Stop scapegoating Spads – they strengthen our democracy - Telegraph Stop scapegoating Spads – they strengthen our democracy By supporting the elected Government’s mandate, special advisers are serving the voters, writes Nick Hillman. A career politician: a young David Cameron as Norman Lamont's SpAd Photo: PA By Nick Hillman Comments Special advisers – or Spads – get a bad rap. In some ways, that is deserved. The list of special advisers who have been in trouble or caused controversy is a long one, and the phone-hacking trial has put Andy Coulson back on the front pages.

Recent revelations about special advisers’ pay also set off a new round of attacks. But much of the abuse comes from people who know next to nothing about special advisers. I was a Spad for the first three and a half years of the Coalition and attempt to shine a light on the role in a paper published today by the Institute for Government . Uniquely, the job is defined by what it is not. Unlike other civil servants, special advisers are not permanent appointments. They do not have to be recruited on merit and are exempt from Whitehall’s general duty of impartiality. Spads also differ from other civil servants by having a fierce bond of loyalty to their minister. Despite appearances, there are very few of them: at the last count, there were 98 special advisers compared to 450,000 regular civil servants. Spads come in three types, although the roles tend to bleed into one another. Policy wonks focus on the government’s initiatives. Spinners focus on media coverage. And bag carriers fulfil a range of tasks, including liaising with the wider political party. At their best, special advisers strengthen democracy by supporting the elected Government’s mandate, contributing to policy formation and insulating the regular civil service from inappropriate political tasks.

To me, they play the role of the compote in a Muller Corner: non-essential, but adding useful colour and flavour. Related Articles Spads bill rises to levels seen under Gordon Brown 16 Nov 2012 The most important role of a regular departmental Spad is to be the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of a minister when they cannot be present. Spads also act as a drop of oil in the cogs of government – for example by resolving cross-government blockages by liaising with other Spads. In addition, they serve as a bridge across the impervious Chinese Wall that so often divides the officials in Whitehall from the politicians at Westminster. It can be a tricky role to fulfil successfully, because Spads are pulled in three directions at once. They tend to feel most loyalty to their minister, to whom they owe their post, and are keen to further his or her agenda within the department. But the centre of government sees Spads as their representatives in the Whitehall outposts.

(My biggest error was not keeping No 10 informed when Les Ebdon was chosen as the new Director for Fair Access: a political row ensued.) Meanwhile, individual departments tend to regard the raison d’être of Spads as pressing their position on the rest of Whitehall. When these three forces are not aligned, Spads have to make a careful decision which one to support. When I joined the Business, Innovation and Skills Department immediately after the 2010 general election, senior officials warned us new Spads not to throw our weight around as, or so they implied, our Labour predecessors had. But they were soon complaining we were too quiescent. It became clear they had meant we should only throw our weight around when it was deemed to be in the departmental interest. In the very first episode of Yes, Minister, civil servants tried to put Jim Hacker’s special adviser in an office far away from his boss and to limit his access to official papers. That would not happen today because the civil service sees more value in Spads. But the role has grown so incrementally that it remains poorly defined and the lack of support for inexperienced special advisers leaves a hole that can get filled with problems.

There is no shortage of ideas for improving the role. Some have argued Spads should be paid by political parties rather than the state. But treating special advisers less like civil servants and more like political apparatchiks would not solve any existing challenges. It would have done nothing to stop the scandals involving special advisers like Jo Moore, Damian McBride and Adam Smith. Indeed, the problem is the precise opposite: the special adviser role is embedded in Whitehall too little rather than too much. To fulfil their role more effectively, Spads need training, an accurate job specification and a proper career path. None of those exist at the moment. It is time we brought Spads in from the cold by accepting temporary civil servants are not a temporary feature of our system of government. Nick Hillman is Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and was special adviser to David Willetts, the Minister for Universities and Science, between 2010 and 2013. ‘In Defence of Special Advisers’ is published Friday 28th March, by the Institute for Government.

Special Advisers – Westminster Racket Fleecing the Taxpayer- Lubricating Party Political Activities | caltonjock Home Special Advisers – Westminster Racket Fleecing the Taxpayer- Lubricating Party Political Activities Special Advisers – Westminster Racket Fleecing the Taxpayer- Lubricating Party Political Activities Massive increase in the number of SPAD’s and Spin Doctors in the employ of the government at taxpayers expense 16 July 2009: there were 74 Special Advisers in post at Westminster providing advice to government ministers at a cost of £5.9million to the taxpayer. By 18 December 2015: the number of SPAD’s has risen to 97 . at a cost of £11.1million. In addition to SPAD’s the government employs “spin doctors” whose role is to put a positive face to anything the government might do regardless of truth or probity. There are now in excess of 100 in employment, an increase of 30 since the Tory government came to power in 2010.

Ed Milliband & SpAd Katie Myler Roles and responsiblities of the SpAd (Special Adviser) SpAd’s are paid employees of the State and are – subject to specified exceptions – required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code.” which states that the highest standards of conduct are expected of special advisers. i. “Specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life. ii. “Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing minister. iii. “Special advisers…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, avoiding personal attacks.” iv “All contacts with news media should be authorized, in advance by the appointing minister.” But the world of the SpAd is murky. They are accountable only to the Minister that appointed them. There is no formal recruitment process or interview. How does it work? Nepotism. A minster decides he needs a SpAd. He gets in touch with David Cameron’s office and obtains permission to appoint one.

Approval granted the minister contacts an old friend from University who might be between jobs and offers him the post. The person accepts. The following Monday the new SpAd reports for duty on a salary of between £60 -£155,000K. Nice if you know the right people. Norman Lamont and his young SpAd Sir Jeremy (Cover-up) Heywood at it again Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Office Supremo and Head of the Civil Service,( nicknamed Sir Cover Up after preventing Chilcott Iraq War inquiry from seeing letters and records of phone calls between Mr Blair and Mr Bush) has been caught up in a row over bending the rules of the Civil Service by permitting Cabinet Office, “special advisers” (pseudo civil servants) to campaign in the recent Rochester by-election. Labour’s Cabinet Office spokesman Jon Ashworth said: ‘There are serious question marks here which Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood needs to clear up. I will be asking him to provide answers about what guidance has been given.’ Sir Jeremy is a powerful force at No10.

David Cameron once joked: ‘Remind me, Jeremy, do you work for me or do I work for you?’ Critics claim he was complicit in the culture of ‘sofa government’ when Tony Blair was PM. He was nicknamed Sir Cover-up after preventing the Iraq War inquiry from seeing letters and records of phone calls between Mr Blair and George W Bush in the run-up to the conflict. Wielding Power in the Sewers of Westminster Clare Short disparagingly dubbed them the “people who live in the dark”. They can often be spotted darting through the television studios of Westminster with their minister, briefing papers under arm and Blackberry in hand. Young, sharp and driven, they are often politicians-in-waiting – among former “spads” are Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and Labour’s Miliband brothers, David and Ed. Employed as temporary civil servants, they do not have to be politically impartial like their civil service colleagues. They link together the minister, the party and the department. They are also the bridge between the neutral civil service and politicians. They help write speeches, some are policy wonks, while others focus on the media.

If a journalist wants to know what a cabinet minister thinks or understand what a policy is about, a call to the special adviser is one of the first ones to make. But they are sometimes sneered at by some journalists. Michael Jacobs, a former special adviser to Gordon Brown, told the BBC that “while ministers needed civil servants for impartial advice, they needed special advisers to help them to make political judgements and consider different options: “They are a sort of lubricant in the machine.” Special advisers first became a permanent fixture in Whitehall in the 1970s. But their number ballooned under Labour. In 1996 there were 38 working in government, costing the taxpayer £1.8m. In 2004 the number peaked at 84 and in 2008/9 there were 74, at a cost of £5.9m. But their expanded ranks prompted concern about their role. Critics voiced concern that a more American, politically driven civil service was sneaking in via the special advisers and lines of accountability were being blurred.

An e-mail sent by special adviser Jo Moore after the terror attacks in the US on 11 September 2001 saying it would be a good time “to bury” bad news triggered a number of reviews into their role and power. Another “spad”-related scandal – the discovery that Damian McBride was smearing senior Conservatives in e-mails – prompted Gordon Brown to ask the cabinet secretary to review the rules governing their behaviour. Political advisers are said to be as powerful as cabinet ministers for the influence they wield on government policy. 2015/2016: 97 *Con/LibDem coalition 20 SpAd’s appointed to support Lib Dem’s So under the tory government, special advisers continue to roam the corridors of Whitehall. Their close relationships to cabinet ministers and lobby correspondents give them influence – an influence that can hatch into a political career later on. A successful stint as a “SpAd” can be a crucial political apprenticeship – as many of the current crop of professional politicians can testify – so long as they stay in the dark. Brown and his SpAd Damian McBride The Government’s special advisers are too well protected for the power they wield.

They need be accountable – They are among the most shadowy figures in government. They sit at the right hand of Cabinet ministers and some wield more influence than the most senior civil servants, yet their names are rarely known outside Whitehall. They are unelected and unaccountable to either the public or Parliament. They are the chosen few, though how they come to be chosen is something of a mystery. Their privileged positions are never advertised, but increasingly the posts they hold lead to the very top of politics. They are government special advisers – or “Spads” – and right now they are under the spotlight. One of their number, Adam Smith, Spad to Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, was found to have been far too close to the Murdoch empire. Not only did Mr Smith have to resign but Labour MPs now want the head of his former boss. This week the Prime Minister, clearly angry, was forced to go to the Commons to defend Mr Hunt. The ongoing row raises serious questions about the role of Spads, who they are, how they are appointed and what should be done to stop them causing havoc. Mr Smith is far from being the first Spad to embarrass his political masters.

Under Labour, bad Spads included Damian “McPoison” McBride, who ran smear campaigns, and Jo Moore, who declared 9/11 a “good day to bury bad news”. Then there was Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s press secretary, whose duties included sexing up intelligence dossiers. The Coalition’s dubious Spads have included the No 10 press secretary and former News of the World editor Andy Coulson – ties to the Murdoch empire again – and Adam Werritty. Mr Werritty’s problem was that he wasn’t a Spad to the then defense secretary, Liam Fox, but he acted like one. This caused outrage – proof perhaps of the muddle there is over Spads. Spads are meant to help senior ministers with the kind of political matters that civil servants cannot touch, whether briefing the media or injecting a party line into policy. Nearly everyone agrees that, as such, they play a crucial role. So what goes wrong? One problem is that they are… well, cronies. To become a Spad you need to know someone in the party of your choice who will take you on.

A survey by the magazine Civil Service World found that 89 per cent of the current crop of Spads had worked for their party HQ or for an MP. Most Spads are young with little experience of anything much. They tend to have been in marketing, lobbying or media relations before joining the Westminster bubble. Once in government, they are thrown in at the deep end: they have no training, they are not accountable to anyone except their ministers and the jobs they do vary enormously from one department to another. The really scary thing is that so many Spads go on to hold the highest offices: David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all started as Spads, and all are still young. A trend for people of proven ability in government would be welcome. In the past, Labour chancellor Denis Healey had been the beach-master at Anzio. Today, Labour leaders are more likely to be asked whose side they were on in the war between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. If Spads are the leaders of the future, a rethink is needed urgently, particularly given the public’s distrust of the political elite.

For a start, it may be time for Spads to come out of the dark – and not just when they are at the centre of a scandal. The Commons’ Public Administration Select Committee is embarking on an inquiry into Spads. One of the questions it will ask is whether they should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by MPs. This might enable those of a more dubious character to be weeded out early on. Had Andy Coulson faced the prospect of being cross-examined by MPs, Mr Cameron might have thought better of appointing him. Public scrutiny could also encourage the idea that Spads should have some experience and achievements to their name in other fields besides politics, before they are given jobs in the heart of government. Once appointed, they could appear regularly before MPs. Spads have to command the confidence of their ministers and they need to share their political views. Yet why should the jobs not be advertised? This would widen the pool and be far fairer. The parties could reject those deemed unsuitable. As it is, the likes of Nick Clegg are always complaining about the wicked middle classes giving internships to the sons and daughters of people they know. Let them follow the same even-handed principles with jobs that are in their gift.

We could even look at Spads being picked from the ranks of elected backbench MPs. We have far too many junior ministers. Indeed, civil servants often have to spend time inventing things for this lowly form of ministerial life to do. Cut the number of junior ministers – in line with the planned cut in the number of MPs – and give promising backbenchers Spad jobs. It would at least close the democratic deficit. Appraisals for Spads, by civil servants reporting to ministers, might also help to regulate this increasingly important cadre. The Coalition started by promising to restrict the number of Spads but the numbers are now well in excess of where they were when Labour left office. The Tory government should not wait for the next scandal. Spads should be brought out of the shadows now. Osborne and his SpAd Rupert Harrison Pay and Other Forms of Remuneration David Cameron and Nick Clegg broke their promise to curb the numbers of highly-paid special advisers. In opposition Cameron promised to ‘cut the cost of politics’ and the coalition agreement said there would be a ‘limit’ on the number of special advisers. In opposition Nick Clegg said. “special advisers shouldn’t be paid for by the public”.

But as soon as he got his feet under the Cabinet table, he broke his word.’ George Osborne froze the wages of six million public sector workers at the time the Coalition came to power, plunging many into poverty under his cruel austerity drive. Yet the heartless Chancellor handed one of the chief architects of the public sector pay freeze, fellow Old Etonian, friend and special adviser Rupert Harrison, a 19% inflation-busting increase boosting the Chief of Staff’s £80,000 salary by £15,000 to £95,000. Not to be outdone, Alexander bumped up the pay of his own adviser Will de Peyer by 16 per cent to £75,000 – while bringing in another special adviser earning £95,000.

The Cabinet Office list showed the employ of 26 special advisers in Downing Street of which six are paid £100,000 or more, topped by Cameron’s: Chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn £140K Director of Communications, Craig Oliver £140K Deputy Head of the No 10 Policy Unit, Christopher Lockwood £ 134K Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, Graeme Wilson £110K Deputy Chief of Staff, Kate Fall £100K Director of Communications (Mr Clegg), Steve Lotinga £105K. Plus another 3 SpAd’s. Plus 16 special advisers for Lib/Dem ministers Total 20. Political creatures: Adam Smith (left), Jeremy Hunt’s special adviser, resigned following allegations that he held inappropriate discussions with News Corporation while it was bidding to take over BSkyB Is There Any Way Out of This Mess? A senior (retired) civil servant asked to comment said “When I was a civil servant I was expected to keep my political opinions to myself. It was also expected, having signed the Official Secrets Act, that I would not reveal information to which I was privy because of my job.

It seems to me that there is a basic conflict of interest here. Should SPADs be paid for put of the public purse? If so, is it compatible with public interest for them to stand for a political interest anyway? The employment of SpAd’s at the expense of the taxpayer should be discontinued and replaced with civil servants entrants with specialist expertise.” If you want to get to the top in politics regardless of talent !! Get a job as a SpAd to a minister

Question: At Westminster what is a spad?
Answer: Special Advisor