A question of leadership: Cameron, Crosby and Blair

David Cameron will be breathing a small sign of relief that the royal baby has finally decided to make its way in the world. Not because royal line is secured but because hopefully people will stop asking him awkward questions about his election guru Lynton Crosby and the influence of said guru on government policy.

Now, regular readers will know that I have a particular view about lobbying. I think it is fine, indeed more than fine. I think that lobbying is part of a mature democratic process. I want policy decisions to be taken on the basis of evidence , of fact. Engaging with a wider range of people and organisations helps inform decision-making. Lobbyists have a role to play in that process. A good lobbyist, a professional lobbyist will help her/his clients marshal their arguments, put together compelling evidence and advise on how that is communicated in a way that is likely to engage the attention of key influencers and decision-makers. A good lobbyist will not take the “if you scratch my back” approach, using personal relationships to buy favours.

From what I have read, I have no problem with Crosby Textor, Lynton Crosby’s firm, giving advice to private healthcare providers. That is what lobbying firms do and there does not appear to be any evidence that Crosby doing anything untoward. Unpalatable to some but not untoward. In these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable for Mr Crosby to use his skills and experiences to earn a crust.

I am a more than little more concerned about the allegations that it was after a chat with Crosby (whose firm has worked for tobacco giant Philip Morris) that the government decided to shelve plans for cigarettes to be sold in plain packets. Cameron has denied Crosby influenced the decision but has repeatedly dodged the question of whether they discussed the policy.

But what has really made me even more concerned, actually I would say furious, is a comment the Prime Minister made to ITN last week when pressed on the issue. He said: “Tony Blair is a good example. Tony Blair is someone who does lobby me from time to time on things like the Middle East peace process. Do I have to know who all Tony Blair's other clients are? If I did that, I don't think I've got enough paper in my office to write them on."

What? Did Cameron really compare the Middle East peace process to the tobacco industry? Does he really think the Middle East is one of Tony Blair’s clients? Seriously?

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Blair’s role as the Middle East envoy is on a par with that of a lobbyist.  I would have thought that it is requirement of the role (for which I am pretty sure he does not get paid) that Blair reports on a regular basis to the quartet that appointed him, namely the UN, EU, US and Russia. Last time l checked we were still part of the UN and the EU and a pretender to the title of world power so on that basis alone I would have thought the Prime Minister of the UK would welcome an opportunity to discuss the process to the man that is tasked with helping to sort things out (I imagine his brief is a little more detailed than that).

Has DC taken leave of his senses? I don’t think so. I think he thought that by trying to bring TB into the row it would be defused. Well he made a serious misjudgement. Not just about defusing the issue but about comparing the Middle East with fags, an issue of global political and economic consequences with a tawdry local political row. So no, he hasn’t taken leave of his senses. He just needs to take better advice, probably not from Crosby, and start behaving like a world leader.

No Minister

I am not sure if Francis Maude would accept the description but he is an aspiring revolutionary. Last week, the Cabinet Minister laid out his plans to reform the civil service. Ok, I know every government has plans to reform the civil service, it is a constantly evolving institution which grows and shrinks from from one decade to the next (for reference it is now the smallest it has been since the Second World War). So what is so different about Mr Maude's plans to warrant a Joseph blog and the word revolutionary?

Like others before him he is calling, nay demanding that senior civil servants have experience of business. But he also announced radical changes to the tenure of employment in the civil service. The most significant of these is that the most senior civil servants - the Permanent Secretaries who head up each government department - will only be appointed for five-year terms. At the end of these terms, they have no guarantee of staying in the civil service at all let alone their jobs. Their continued employment will be dependent on the incumbent Secretary of State.  

Maude is also proposing that ministers will be also allowed directly to appoint a dozen or so key personnel in their private offices teams including making political appointments.

Now, I would absolutely advocate that we encourage more people from more diverse backgrounds and with wider experience to enter into public service. And I have no problem per se with ministers having access to more than one or two political advisers (although it is ironic that the party which gave the Labour Party so much stick about the number of special advisers it had when it was in government - it was around 70 by the way - is now proposing changes which would see the number of political appointments rocket).

But I do take issue with the changes to the employment contract of Perm Secs. The real value of Permanent Secretaries is precisely because that they are appointed at the pleasure of ministers. They are among the few people who can tell the minister "no". They can advise ministers robustly and professionally. If their careers in the civil service are to be dependent on politicians you can imagine their desire to stand up to those very politicians may not be as deep.

These changes put the independence of the civil service at risk. I say independence rather than impartiality because civil servants are not meant to be impartial. They are employed to implement the programme of the government of the day. Their impartiality comes into play on the day that government changes when they should and do transfer their commitment seamlessly to the new administration.  But their employment should always be independent of politicians.

Xenophobia is not the right path

My dad had surgery on Tuesday (the subject of a future posting almost certainly) so I was a bit distracted when I heard about the Government's plans to charge foreigners for using the NHS. At least that is how I accounted for my confusion. But then I took a closer look and realised it was just plain confusing.

On paper it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't appear to be a huge problem.  Given the size of the NHS budget, the amount they are looking to save is pretty much a rounding error. I have been frequently asked at hospitals across London if I am a UK citizen, so there clearly is some system in place. Health care professionals appear united in their view that we should not be discouraging anyone from anywhere seeking medical help for infectious diseases (and yes I know these would be excluded from the proposed payment regime but there is likely to be a deterrent effect). And if they do want to clamp down on health tourism then why target people who are here on two-year visas almost all of whom are working and therefore paying NI contributions or married to/partnered with a UK citizen who is paying NI?

It really doesn't add up. Until you think about the rise of UKIP. And then suddenly all this xenophobia makes sense. Up against a right-wing, anti-immigration, little Englander party? Worried it is stealing votes you could normally count on? Then indulge in a little bit of Johnny Foreigner bashing yourself. It is the cheap and easy option.

It is also the wrong option. It won't stop the loss of votes to the right and risks losing votes on the centre, all those votes the Conservatives have picked up through taking a stand on same sex marriage and other socially liberal reforms. 

And it isn't just the Tories who have been tempted down the xenophobic path. The Labour and Lib Dems have also fallen prey. I fear that as we get closer to the next general election, we will see more lurches to the right, more intolerance on display, more foreigner bashing from the three main parties.

They would all do better both electorally and morally if they treated voters with a bit of respect, challenged xenophobia and celebrated the huge benefits this country has reaped from foreigners who have contributed hard work, wealth and culture to this land.  Foreigners like the most of nursing staff looking after my dad today.