SpAds

 The Institute for Government is worried about the way the Johnson government is changing the rôle of special advisers. I have always worried that their introduction by Wilson's first government was the thin end of a wedge whose thick end was the American system of changing officials wholesale with each change of presidency. Their numbers were bearable until Blair-Brown came in and swelled their ranks into the eighties. Cameron promised to cut their numbers but did not. 

The IfG does see a need for them:

Special advisers – or ‘spads’ – play an essential role in the UK government, providing ministers with the political advice that civil servants, as impartial government employees, cannot.

However:

Certain advisers in the current government, particularly Dominic Cummings, have attracted much public attention. But behind the headlines, the government has also been making changes to the recruitment and remit of, and relationships between, special advisers. Many of these changes are helping advisers to do their jobs more effectively, but others risk undermining advisers’ ability to provide support to their ministers. 

They are particularly worried about the centralisation of power in No. 10, the reduction in the power of ministers to appoint the advisers of their choice and the weakening of the relationship between minister and adviser. They want to see an increase in the number of advisers per minister to five.

That would further dilute the expertise available in the civil service, as these appointments are virtually all political, advancing young people with little knowledge outside their party allegiances. It would aggravate the silo mentality of government departments begun under Thatcher and Heseltine. The battle-lines between them have become all too obvious in the uncoordinated handling of the Covid-19 epidemic.