Giving think tanks a direct policy role is good for democracy

Excluding think tanks of left, right or centre from the policy process is undemocratic as well as impossibly naïve.


Alan White is worried by the notion of some policy-making being “outsourced” to think tanks. He shouldn’t be.

Fourth on his target list is my Centre for Crime Prevention. Founded in January, it’s certainly a fledgling organisation whose strong media impact may just possibly be down to strong and newsworthy reports - because I can assure him it isn’t owed to big corporate donors or a large staff.

It isn’t immediately obvious why a report saying something true and interesting should be ignored because it has a single author, and I’m grateful that the press seems to agree. But if the Centre grows to the point of attracting those big corporate donors, I’d no doubt face lots of sneer quotes about how dubious that relationship is (for which see White’s examples 1-3). Perhaps think tanks cannot win?

In fact, White shouldn’t worry on either front. Many think tanks do pay the bills because of wealthy donors like Lord Sainsbury, certain trade unions and some companies. But pay-for-print think tanks soon collapse financially for the simple reason that the credibility of their reports depends on the perception and reality of independence. Big companies are perfectly capable of producing corporate brochures without external help.

In theory anyone can publish a report, but if their figures aren’t demonstrably correct and referenced they’ll be ignored even by “three hacks on minimum wage and a couple of kids on work experience”, let alone by policy makers.

There is controversy in any attempt to derive policy from data, but this is inherent to policy-making rather than a problem created by think tanks.

So for example White sees vulnerability in women criminals and clearly believes our prisons include lots of “women offenders who posed no risk to the public”. By contrast, I look at MOJ data showing 11,531 women with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions went before the courts after committing a serious (indictable) offence in the year ending September 2012. I think of their tens of thousands of victims and compare that to a female prison population of less than 4,000 (which includes prisoners from previous years). I think too of White’s excellent book, and its account of “women who’ll take a thirteen-year-old girl over to an estate in order to be gang raped, because that girl’s said something she shouldn’t”. All this leads me to conclude that sending (even) fewer serious, repeat women criminals to prison might harm the interests of the vulnerable.

There’s an argument to be had, then, and it’s inherently political. Given such policy debates must take place in Whitehall, it may just help to turn to those who came up with the policy ideas in the first place.

There’s a serious democratic point to make that governments are elected on a particular platform and agenda, and voters have a right to elect or reject them on that basis. Excluding think tanks of left, right or centre from the policy process in pursuit of agenda-free policy-making is therefore undemocratic as well as impossibly naïve.

White is plainly against scaling back community sentences for serious, repeat offenders and building more private prisons. Likewise, many would disagree with his policy ideas. But stopping governments pursuing particular policies is what elections are for. Long may that remain the case.

Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

It's official, Brexit means breakfast — or at least as far as John McDonnell is concerned

The shadow chancellor is not the first politician to confuse the UK's EU exit with the morning meal.

Who doesn’t hate a chaotic breakfast? As the shadow chancellor John McDonnell clearly knows, there is nothing worse than cold toast, soggy cereal and over boiled eggs. The mere thought of it makes the mole shiver.

In the middle of a totally cereal, sorry, speech this morning on Brexit and its impact on the economy, McDonnell expressed his fear that the government was “hurtling towards a chaotic breakfast". 

Addressing the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London, he argued that Theresa May’s government could decide to opt for a Brexit deal that favoured Tory “special interests" at the expense of the rest of the country.

Warming to his theme he accused Tory cabinet ministers of looking to “cook up” deals for their “friends in the City of London”, before making the powerful point that "Tory voters don't want a bankers' breakfast any more than I do". Bang, the same foodie blooper dropped twice in one speech. It seems that breakfast really does mean breakfast, or at least as far as McDonnell and the Labour Party are concerned.

He can take solace in the fact that he is not the only politician to fall into this particular verbal trap, it seems a fear of a lousy breakfast is shared by ministers across the political spectrum. In his speech to Conservative Party conference, Welsh Tory leader, Andrew T Davies, trumpeted the fact that the government would make the morning meal its top priority. “Conference, mark my words,” he said “we will make breakfast. . . Brexit, a success.” The Mole loves to hear such a passionate commitment to the state of the nation’s Weetabix.

And, it’s not just politicos who are mixing up the UK’s impending exit from EU with the humble morning meal. The BBC presenter Aaron Heslehurst was left red-faced after making multiple references to “breakfast” during a live broadcast, including one where he stated that it “had opened up a brave new world for UK exporters”. Who knew?

And there was your mole thinking that the hardest part of breakfast was getting up and out of the burrow early enough to enjoy it. Food for thought indeed.


I'm a mole, innit.