Political Intelligence for Businesses working with Government

GUIDE delivers political and market intelligence for corporate clients. To find out more, email Chief Executive Greig Baker on greig@theguideconsultancy.com 

Public sector contract terms will change dramatically in light of new Cabinet Office plan

The new Cabinet Office and Civil Service workforce plan to 2020 has three major implications for commercial suppliers to Government.

1/ Changes to Senior Civil Service recruitment and pay will encourage mutual secondments between Departments and suppliers, but will also increase the risk of key staff being ‘poached’ by the public sector.

2/ The Civil Service will recruit according to “potential not polish” (i.e. it will hire people from wider socio-economic backgrounds) and it will establish a requirement to collect more demographic data on staff. Both “voluntary” features are highly likely to be passed on to suppliers, too – initially through an “invitation” to agree “a common national

set of measures for employers to use for understanding the socio-economic background” of their staff and potential recruits. As a result, major public sector contracts will only be won when firms toe the line and can demonstrate the diversity of their own workforce.

3/ The workforce review allows the Cabinet Office to grab even more power over wide-ranging functions across Government. There will be “a centre of expertise within Cabinet Office, centralising the senior recruitment function”. In other words, senior officials in all Departments will be chosen by – and answer to – the Cabinet Office, rather than their own Department. This makes engagement with the Cabinet Office more important than ever.

As an aside, the review also poses some prickly political challenges. For example, while Senior Civil Servants are in line for pay rises by November (“flexible rewards for scare skills”), there will be job cuts elsewhere (“in future the Civil Service will need to be smaller”). Indeed, if the review represents an effort to stuff the mouths of top mandarins with gold but leaves frontline staff demoralised, Theresa May’s new administration could quickly find that when it pulls the levers of Government, nothing happens.

The full Cabinet Office workforce plan can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-workforce-plan-2016-to-2020

The Conservative leadership race

Two factors make this race to be Tory leader and PM unusual. First, it comes hot on the heels of the referendum, which means backbench MPs have recent experience of when they can give, withdraw, or withhold their public support for one side or the other to maximum effect. Second, the incumbent Prime Minister does not have a chosen candidate in the competition, which makes it much less likely that the party machinery can sway the vote (as happened when Michael Howard appointed Francis Maude as Party Chairman to boost David Cameron, for example).  

The biggest political story the papers won’t cover

For all the excitement of the two leadership races, important decisions are being taken in Whitehall as well as in Parliament. There will be a rare coincidence of the two worlds this week, when the Procedure Select Committee will take evidence on scrutinising the Government’s supply Estimates from PAC Chair Meg Hillier MP. The Estimates set out what the Government is spending and where. Contrary to popular belief, the Budget only describes changes to spending, rather than giving the full picture – so for those who want to understand where political power really lies, the Estimates are the best place to start. However, there isn’t much chance of this seemingly dry accounting exercise bumping party politics off the front page over the next few days…

Lessons from the Dove at Dargate

On Sunday we had a pub lunch in the beer garden of the Dove at Dargate – a typically welcoming Kentish country pub. Strikingly, the families on every table around us were talking about the EU referendum, with the friendly banter turning a bit sharp more than once. While there has been much speculation about “revenge” and “reconciliation” reshuffles to bring the Conservatives back together, something else is more important… On Friday we will see how deeply split the country is over an issue of fundamental importance, so the Government must strive to bring the public back together or else, whoever wins, defeated voters will seek new vents for their frustrations.

GDS consultation deadline approaches

Away from the referendum melee, much of the business of Government – and the business with Government – continues. The Government Digital Service (GDS) consultation on Whitehall's Technology Code of Practice, which will shape tech spending within Government Departments, will close on 8th July. The Code is set to help GDS move towards multi-supplier contracts, promote competition among suppliers, build in-house where appropriate and use a more “adaptive” approach. More prosaically, GDS is also reviewing spend controls for Departments, so the consultation will determine the commercial prospects for tech firms supplying the public sector.

Known knowns after polling day

The EU vote may be too close to call, but three things will be certain on Friday.

First, the Government’s working majority of 16 will be dwarfed by defeated Tory malcontents (and the administration will still be heavily outweighed in the Lords, too). Second, George Osborne will be at serious risk of political reprisal – either through punishment or sacrifice. And third, the deluge of delayed legislation and the need for a ‘referendum dividend’ means the Government will be under pressure to announce a flurry of new Bills, even if it does not have the political capital to deliver them.

In short, whatever happens on Thursday, this extraordinary period of high drama in British politics will continue for many months to come. 

The GUIDE to the week

Inevitably, it’s nearly all referendum this week…

One step forward, two steps back

It’s a truism that David Cameron is renowned for getting out of political crises – and for getting into them. However we vote next week and whomever is Prime Minister after the summer, the Government will face another big difficulty, in that it will need to give a referendum dividend by the Autumn Statement. This will include significant policy changes that will need either a specific political mandate or the ability to cajole opposition parties. And the Conservatives’ hopes of either of those essential factors are not helped by Cameron ceding the stage to Corbyn et al now. In other words, a short-term tactic is – yet again – storing up trouble for the future.

Money can buy you love

Companies that get our procurement intelligence reports are already familiar with Whitehall’s rule on social policy through procurement. Later this summer, all private sector suppliers to Whitehall will have an idea of what the Government really wants when it signs a contract. The Cabinet Office has promised to give examples of contracts that deliver on the Social Value Act – and chosen case studies will be a strong signal of what it wants suppliers to do beyond what they are actually getting paid for. It will also be a big hint on whether or not major programmes like the Apprenticeship Levy will be rolled out on time…

Divided they fall

I wrote an article for Labour Uncut on why left-leaning MPs should be worried by their unity for Remain. The gist was that senior Labour types have contented themselves with Tory infighting, instead of weighing the real social justice dilemmas of Leave or Remain – Brussels promotes workers’ rights whilst stopping interventions to save the steel industry, for example. The article doesn’t argue for a particular side in the referendum, but the monochrome debate in Labour (about how loudly to campaign, not what to campaign for) suggests the intellectual innovation needed to regain power is still missing and that even MPs with a ‘safe’ seat should worry. The full article is up on the GUIDE site, too.

The man in Whitehall knows best

In times of high drama, a common cry is “Government should do something”. Drawing more lessons for the modern age from Niall Ferguson’s biography of Kissinger, perhaps it shouldn’t… In the Cuban missile crisis, Government officials almost sparked nuclear holocaust by the mundane (vital messages were delivered late because of traffic), the incredible (classified messages were sent to Moscow via Western Union) and the farcical (a bear wandering onto a US Air Force base set off very worrying alarms). After the various cris de Coeur in our EU referendum campaign, the public may be less inclined to call on Westminster to solve its problems. 

Will Corbyn or Cameron create the next Tory leader?

Kissinger was dismayed by the race for the White House in the early years of his career – and especially by Barry Goldwater, who was the Donald Trump of his day. Kissinger explained Goldwater as a result of “the pragmatists who pride themselves they’re steering the precise middle course between extremes [but are] bound to produce the extremes which everybody deplores”. If true, this suggests it was inevitable that Cameron would lead to Farage and Miliband would lead to Corbyn. Looking ahead, whether the next Conservative leader is an ‘extremist’ or a ‘centrist’ could depend on whether they are the natural political reaction to Corbyn or to Cameron…

Labour should be more divided on Europe

To abuse Boris's analogy, the ball hasn't even come loose from the scrum yet, but the referendum means Conservative players are already knocking lumps out of each other. In stark contrast, even as the country weighs its biggest and perhaps most controversial political decision in a generation, the Labour Party is in one peaceful - almost soporific - voice. The Tories are making a spectacle of themselves and Labour is just, well, spectating.

Although I wouldn't wish the Conservatives' internecine battles on anyone, I think Labour's unnatural unity in the referendum is much more worrying.

In days gone by, fierce message discipline and unity of purpose were conscious (and very effective) electoral tactics for Labour. It is a massive, risible, stretch to argue that the party is now applying the same deliberate approach to the EU referendum. If senior Labour figures can chase each other down the street - in front of the cameras! - shouting "Hitler apologist", it's hard to believe the party has gone into the referendum determined to avoid "appearing" split. In almost every other policy area, and to an unprecedented degree, Labour MPs actively and openly criticise their own leaders - and the leadership returns the favour.

And even if Labour's monochrome referendum campaign was designed with electoral advantage in mind, it would be hugely mistaken. In the next General Election, if Labour keeps pushing Remain now, for every one of its north London MPs who adds yet another thousand to their majority, a parliamentary colleague in north Lancashire is going to have to fight ever harder just to fend off UKIP.

Perhaps unity in the referendum campaign is just a natural condition, born of Labour's common values? No. However hard you squint, there is no way 'Europe' fits neatly into a unified left-wing view of the world, either.  

For every argument that the EU encourages trade and reduces prices for the working class, there's another that TTIP welcomes in private firms who'll plunder the NHS.

For every person who says we should rely on the EU for workers' rights, there's another who says the EU forbids state aid to save Redcar or Port Talbot.

Should we welcome all the world's dispossessed, or should we stop immigrants undercutting working class wages?

Should we set international trade policy to protect European agriculture, or promote African farmers?

Do we welcome skilled workers, or do we ease the pressures on public services and housing?

Do we reverse Europe's democratic deficit, or do we hope for international strength in numbers?

Can we solve tensions in the Middle East, or are we letting terrorists in unchecked?

Can we influence climate policies, or are EU trawlers raping marine eco systems?

Of course, the European Union may be the solution to all of these problems, or the cause at the root of them - but surely Labour's 400,000 members don't all agree on which it is in every case? Surely, given careful thought, some senior party figures should decide the path to social justice lies through Brussels while others say it judders to a halt there?!

Instead, the very lack of debate, dissension and disagreement within Labour over whether to Remain or Leave the European Union is a worrying and saddening symptom of a wider malaise. Both the Foot '83 and Miliband '15 vintages were tested and rejected by the public, so by definition Labour needs some new thinking to get back into power. But new ideas don't come from a party that wanders into a huge national debate in a near-comatose state, failing to test its own position before trying to convince others to follow it.

It’s striking that so many Labour figures have meekly adopted the same referendum position. For Labour, watching the Tories maul each other may well be a great spectator sport. But who goes into politics just to be a spectator?


Please email us for details about upcoming events

Receive exclusive reports and news

GUIDE on Twitter