When a Prime Minister ‘refreshes’ his team they are hoping for a boost in the polls. Rarely are they looking for a change in direction or the generation of new ideas. It is a mistake to think otherwise.
What David Cameron’s latest reshuffle did was to remove an unpopular Minister, Michael Gove, and try to shift the perception that the Government is dominated by older, white men. The promotion of several women into prominent positions will help but this assumes that the voting public is convinced by such moves. They rarely are and this is a mistake leaders can lapse into. It has also to do with the party’s message but this close to an election they will only be tweaked at most.
Of potentially longer term impact was the movement of Sir Bob Kerslake from Head of the Civil Service. The wish of the Conservatives to reform the service has long been known and Francis Maude’s ideas which formed the basis of the Civil Service Reform Plan in 2012 would mean radical change.
According to the Times, ‘a new chief executive, with a proven track record in the private sector, is to be appointed to accelerate civil service reforms’. This sort of input is welcome but simply bringing someone in from the private sector rarely works. It is considered a panacea – some attempts are more successful than others. Thatcher created Next Steps Agencies and the use of consultants goes in and out of fashion.
A read of the excellent Institute for Government report, Centre Forward: Effective Support for the Prime Minister at the Centre of Government, also shows examples where it works (using head-hunters for Number 10 jobs) and where it doesn’t (Stephen Carter as chief of staff who ‘lacked(ed) the political or personal connections … or the Whitehall nous of a civil service principal private secretary’).
Some of the strict pay scales imposed in the early years of the Coalition when they wanted to bring in people from the private sector meant they simply failed to attract them because the money was not on offer.
There is also the implicit assumption that private sector equals better but that depends on what the civil service exists to do. If Kerslake was seen as a block on getting reforms through there could be a reason for that simply beyond intransigence or reluctance.
This mixing of civil service and political reshuffling is a new departure. Politicians have often exerted influence and forced change in past, Blair did it, but reshuffles are normally the preserve of the political.
So the main message that those in public affairs need to consider is less the personalities involved but more what will happen to policy-making processes. It could be that if Labour fails to agree the reforms or approach that we could see a more constant state of reform as Governments come and go. This will not suit the development of long term policy which business is constantly emphasising the need for. A suggested fixed five year term does not guarantee the person will stay there and does not mean that they will get anything done or that a new government wouldn’t make different, even conflicting, demands. Reporting lines and actually powers are critical. It is what any good private sector import would also demand.
This reshuffle was certainly more exciting than many but its implications could be felt far beyond most.