The pressure on public spending has had a massive impact on central government. Significant cuts have been implemented across Whitehall departments since 2010 and this has left them vulnerable to short-term thinking and a failure to effectively horizon scan. This is an opportunity for public affairs campaigns.
The spending cuts have meant that many senior civil servants have left the service. Many senior officials took the opportunity of early retirement as departments were put under pressure to deliver a reduction in head count. One of the consequences of this has been to place additional responsibilities on younger members of the service. Added to this there are increased expectations of those that are there, in other words whilst the head count has been reduced the work load on individuals has, it has been suggested, increased.
Add to this, widespread feedback about a lack of motivation amongst officials and you have a recipe for future failings.
Government complains that the civil service are failing to implement their ideas, and reports of fall outs between leading officials and government ministers are too common to be without foundation. It has been suggested that some leading officials are also being ‘reminded’ of their key responsibilities. All of which add to the de-motivation.
The proposed Maude reforms of the civil service have gone a little quiet but I think these will come back on the table around election time and if the Conservative Party return to office, especially if they rule as a single party.
One area that has slipped is that of long term thinking.
Many departments used to have teams, or groups of experts with a secretariat, that would undertake research, thought leadership and do some blue skies thinking. This type of thinking ahead is now not taking place and some officials are privately critical of this.
So departments are concerned with day-to-day operations not the consideration of new policies or future policy direction.
This inevitably shifts this role to think tanks but also places a greater responsibilities on the party apparatus itself and government advisers, especially in No 10. They will be looked to for the generation of implementable policy ideas. This could impact on the relationship between the civil service and politicians.
The civil service and government may have no choice but to open themselves up to other stakeholders for policy ideas. The wider policy community under this scenario increases in importance.
This could change the way the policy community operates as well. For instance, Select Committee inquiries require input but you need to consider think tank policy development in the same way, likewise attendance at their events. Rather than being a ‘nice to’ they become more essential. Furthermore, the think tanks themselves may have to move away from a model where several key sponsors exclusively lead an issue. Membership organisations too may need to consider policy for their sector in a way future-facing way.
Reports by external advisers and groups of experts can have more impact under the new civil service way of working. Organisations also need to consider their own policy development, consultations etc in this environment.
The outcomes need to be delivered in a way that works for Government and the civil service as well. This requires a keen understanding not just of the politics but also the administrative realities of policy development and Parliament as well.
There is a question mark over whether it should remain the preserve of the civil service and the state to look to the future rather than those with a particular interest and perspective.
However, for those building a public affairs campaign, the change opens up potential opportunities for engagement. The programme can play a useful role and, proper ly constituted, fill a gap that has opened up. Public affairs is about building and delivering solutions but it also about recognising and utilising opportunities for engagement. This is one such opportunity.