Each time a new faction of British politicians find their way to power, they make the same mistakes. They start with grand promises that cheer party activists. But these promises often end up in a morass of mistakes. It is time the public demanded an end to the stupidity that is structured into politics before we are forced to suffer another round of costly cock-ups.
Over the past few weeks, we have seen new faces take to the stage at party conferences to make new promises. Theresa May bought an end the era of Notting Hill neoliberalism and unveiled Erdington Conservativism. Out went austerity, level playing fields and globalisation. In came infrastructure development, industrial policy and nationalism.
Big ideas make excellent headlines but they rarely make good policy. This is because radical new ideas are often created by small groups of like-minded individuals. These bands of radicals can drive political innovation, but they also fall prey to groupthink. Psychologists have repeatedly found that many great screw-ups are driven by small groups of like-minded individuals who come together and end up making stupid decisions. These groups are often more concerned with agreeing with each other than making the right decision. In a tight-knit group, challenging dominant ideas is seen as a sign of disloyalty. This is particularly potent in politics, where loyalty is a vital currency. One act of dissent can be enough to end your career.
People with big ideas rarely have much real-life experience of the policy area they are so set on shaking up. They often have a grand vision but little idea about how their fine ideas should be implemented. This is what happened when ministers in Tony Blair’s government, with no real understanding of IT or health, pursued their grand vision of patient choice in health-care by commissioning the world’s biggest civilian IT project. Unsurprisingly, the National Programme for IT proved to be a £10bn onmishambles. The same thing could be happening all over again as Amber Rudd – an ex-investment banker and minister for energy – sets about shaking up the immigration system.
In the past, civil servants took their job of saving politicians from their own stupidity seriously. Today, civil servants rapidly move around departments. They are encouraged to have a “can do” attitude, so they rarely say no to politicians. What’s more, today’s civil servant often has as little expertise in their policy area as their clueless minister. I know of a case where a postgraduate student was asked to develop a new policy area during a three-month internship. When she asked “What is important?”, she was told by her twentysomething boss, “One or two good PowerPoint slides”. At the end of her time she delivered her PowerPoint slides, and now this is a major area of government policy.
When politicians with grand ideas end up making grand mistakes, they often move onwards and upwards within a year or two. Far from mistakes being punished, in politics they seem to be rewarded. This is what happened when Jeremy Hunt presided over the phone-hacking affair as minister of culture, media and sport. He was then “punished” by being handed an even bigger portfolio at the Ministry of Health.
The same thing is happening with Liam Fox. After overseeing an increasingly dire situation in the defence forces as minister of defence, he has just been rewarded with the vital position of trade minister. One wonders whether Dr Fox’s “success” in defence bodes well for the UK’s mission to do trade deals around the world.
In my search for solutions, I found some inspiration in Ivor Crewe and Anthony King’s depressingly insightful study of blunders in British politics. Policies should be created by groups hailing from a range of backgrounds and ideologies. All studies of group decision making shows that increasing diversity means decisions taken tend to be better quality, even though they take longer. This might mean cross-party groups should work through the details of new policy before it is released on the world.
Politicians who want to make one of their big ideas into law should have at least some experience with the policy area. If they hope to shake up the energy sector, maybe they should spend some time in a power plant, a electricity distribution centre, or a customer service centre. They also might want to gain an understanding of the intricacies of implementing their favoured ideas. Maybe ministers should be banned from implementing any new idea until they can demonstrate a level of competence in their policy area.
Finally, we should hold ministers to account by insisting they deliver their own stupid ideas, and clear up the mess which they will inevitably leave behind them. If a minister starts out on a new initiative, then they should stick around to see if though. Perhaps we might also insist on the kind of reward by results system they have implemented on everyone else in the public sector – if your policy screws up, then you don’t get rewarded with another portfolio.
Making these relatively minor changes to the way ministers work is one way we might try to save ourselves from the stupidity of a smart politician with a big idea.
