Policy Exchange: Past, present and future

The group once called "Cameron's favourite think-tank" celebrates its tenth anniversary today, and i

Policy Exchange was founded ten years ago. We believed -  and still do - that there is a role for the state, albeit a much smaller and more efficient one, to help improve peoples’ lives. We also felt that people should have more of a direct say on the decisions that affect themselves and their families.

Decentralisation was one of our key themes and some of our better known policy recommendations such as directly elected police commissioners and Free Schools stem from this initial premise. The first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place this November. We believe that a police chief who is directly accountable to the people he or she serves will improve not only the standard of policing at a local level but also re-establish trust in the police, something that has diminished recently with the recent phone hacking scandal.

We first put forward policy recommendations for the setting up of Free Schools because we believe that every parent should have access to a good, local school which offers their child the best possible education. Teaching is one of the most important jobs in the country. We want schools, especially in the most deprived areas of the UK, to have the means to attract the best possible teachers. That means challenging dated concepts such as national pay bargaining, which defines how much a teacher should earn based on time spent in the job, rather than ability. Head teachers know how good a teacher is and should be allowed to pay that person accordingly. Likewise if someone is not cut out to be a teacher, then he or she should not simply be moved from one school to the next as is currently the case. We need to reform the education system to attract the brightest and the best to help our children achieve their potential.

The pupil premium – an additional cash payment for the most disadvantaged children – is one idea that some people forget was first floated by Policy Exchange. The Liberal Democrats took the idea forward in their 2010 election manifesto and the policy came into being this year.

Our work on re-establishing the contributory principle in the welfare system has been taken forward by both Labour and Conservative politicians. The universal credit, set to be introduced in 2014, is a stepping stone to making it more worthwhile to work rather than remain on benefits. However, there is a huge amount more to be done to create a fairer welfare system. Recently we have proposed tougher sanctions and conditions on jobseekers who are not doing all they can to find work. At the same time, the government has a responsibility to help jobcentre advisers identify those people who are the least likely to be able to hold down a job due to alcohol or drug problems or a history of mental health problems. These people need the most help and we need to create a system where on day one of someone signing on, a Jobcentre adviser has the information to tailor specific help towards people with particular needs.

While a number of our policy recommendations have found their way into coalition thinking, we are still looking to the future. There is a huge challenge facing all political parties – how do you improve public services with no money. We will be publishing a number of reports over the coming months which specifically look to provide answers to this question.

How can you improve the effectiveness of the police when they are faced with 20 per cent budget cuts over the next three years? We think the police could deploy existing, fully trained officers more effectively rather than simply hire more staff – deployment is more important than employment. Private companies and civilian staff can play a role in delivering back office functions, such as manning call centres, freeing up time for officers to carry out more visible policing roles which is what the public is crying out for.

Energy bills are the biggest concern to most people around the country if you look at any of the opinion polls. We think the government could help energy companies reduce electricity bills by revising current climate change policy. We believe that global warming is happening and we believe that the UK has a responsibility to reduce its carbon emissions. But, current energy policy throws billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money on the deployment of specific, expensive technologies such as offshore wind. Government should spend more of its budget on financing innovation directly, rather than subsidising the mass roll out of expensive technologies.

Opening up public data is something that this government is committed to doing and we fully support this aim. Only this week we published a report calling on a right to open data. All non personal information held by government departments (maps and postcodes for example) should be made available for free. We think that entrepreneurs and civic activists could use this information to create new ‘Apple-like’ services and products. Free, open data could create billions of pounds for the economy.

As you can probably tell, there is plenty of work to do. We need to make sure that the modern day Policy Exchange rises to the challenge.

Neil O'Brien is the director of Policy Exchange.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump

For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic.

Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional ­crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017.

US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy.

British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it.

This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”.

A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of ­non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic.

You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the ­bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”.

It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media.

By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country.

Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013)

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder