New Times, April 2000
Paul Anderson talks to Matthew Taylor, new director of the Institute for Public Policy research, the leading centre-left think-tank
'For me the most wonderful thing about this job is that I can say what I like without having to ask permission first,' says Matthew Taylor, director of the Institute for Public Policy Research. 'It's the best job I've ever had.'
If this sounds like a swipe at his previous employer, it is – but only a gentle one. Before taking the helm at Britain's biggest centre-left think-tank at the end of 1998, Taylor, now 39, was a senior Labour Party apparatchik, working as director of policy in the run-up to the 1997 general election and then as assistant general secretary. And although he is keen to emphasise IPPR's (and his own) independence from the government, he is just as insistent on the need to maintain friendly relations with new Labour.
'There are times when the message I get from the government is that I've gone massively offside, that I'm showing worrying signs of disloyalty, and that I'm forgetting who the real enemy is,' he says with a grin. 'This government has got a problem with those it can't control.
'But from the point of view of journalists and my mates, I'm too new Labour, and I don't take enough risks. The fact is that we work very closely with people in government, simply because it's our job to influence public policy. But that doesn't mean that we're at their beck and call.'
'Of course, it's hard to occupy a position of critical engagement with this government. Journalists just want you to be critical, while the government just wants you to be engaged. But we're an independent think-tank, and we have to tread that path.
'Sometimes it's uncomfortable, but the reality is that if you say something that embarrasses the government, you spend 24 hours with people ringing you up and shouting and screaming at you and then 48 hours later they'll ring up again and tell you: "We wish you hadn't done that but let's carry on talking."'
The IPPR has had to reinvent itself in the past three years. From its foundation in 1988 – largely at the instigation of Neil Kinnock, with cash from the tycoon Clive Hollick – until 1997, its role was that of chief policy trouble-shooter and wonk-recruiter for the Labour leadership. In the wake of Labour's 1992 defeat, John Smith gave it the task of sorting out the mess of party policy on the welfare state, setting up the Commission on Social Justice under its auspices. Although Tony Blair rejected most of the commission's recommendations, he took on its chief researcher, David Miliband, as his head of policy. Subsequently, Blair gave the IPPR a major part in his drive to get business leaders on side. In 1995, the IPPR set up the Commission on Public Policy and British Business, dominated by prominent business people and chaired by George Bain, principal of the London Business School, 'to investigate the competitive position of the British economy and the role that public policy should play in it'. Blair's launch of its report in January 1997 was a key moment in new Labour's campaign to persuade the business world that it was absolutely committed to flexible labour markets.
The IPPR has continued since 1997 to provide new Labour with personnel – in the past year alone, three of its staff have moved on to become senior government advisers. But after Blair became prime minister, it lost its function as chief policy trouble-shooter. In government, new Labour was able to call upon the vast resources of the civil service to do the detailed policy work in which the IPPR specialised. Suddenly, it was by no means clear what it was for.
'I think it's fair to say that the institute went through a crisis of confidence after the 1997 election,' says Taylor. 'Then after that there was a long period between my predecessor Gerry Holtham leaving and my joining. I inherited an institute that had a good reputation, but its reputation was in the past. We were in financial difficulties and we had a profile problem. I spent my first year here trying to get the place back on its feet.'
Taylor says that he is reasonably satisfied with progress so far. 'We've doubled in size, and the more projects you've got the more news coverage you can generate. Our profile has risen a lot. In the beginning I think it was because I was quoted as a former Millbank insider, but now I think we're getting the coverage for our work. We've also brought some good people in.'
He says that the IPPR has a broader range than any other think-tank and reels off a list of projects currently under way or soon to start – on the private finance initiative, the future of work, reform of the criminal justice system, the relationship between parents and schools, the prospects for social housing. 'And that's just a small part of it.'
But he admits to frustration too. 'There's not much of a tradition in Britain of people funding think-tanks,' he says. 'I'd love one of these internet millionaires to come along and say: "Look, here's a million quid." All the think tanks are scratching around for a few bob here and a few bob there. I've never explicitly competed with another think-tank for money, and I've got a great deal of respect for Tom Bentley at Demos and Michael Jacobs at the Fabian Society. The problem is that I get corporate sector people coming into see me -- one of them said: "I've got 10 grand to give to a think-tank. Tell me why yours is the best." So in those circumstances you have to sell the place. But it's not what I'm all about. I want to make the cake bigger rather than fight over the slices.'
Most IPPR research projects are self-generated, but lack of money means that what corporate funders are prepared to back is always a consideration. 'There are certain things we don't do work on because, although they're really interesting, there's no chance of funding. We're realistic about what is likely to get funded and what counts as an area of public policy.'
What government wants is also a factor. ' We don't get phone calls from government saying "Do this work",' says Taylor. 'But you hear speeches, you read articles and you think: "The government's got a problem here." And then you do something about it.'
Taylor is insistent that this approach is consistent with a commitment to being visionary and innovative. 'Think-tanks are only as good as their last idea. No one says: "We've got to listen because it's IPPR." The fact is that we've got a consistent record of developing good ideas and good policies. The important thing is to have a strong brand image. We're a progressive think-tank that develops policies that can be applied. We are not a think-tank that says we're above politics, neither left nor right but floating in the ether. We don't just have ideas that are visionary, we try to come up with things that can be done.'
So what is IPPR doing about 'the vision thing'? 'Politics is about changing practice,' he says. 'But it's also about creating a climate of opinion that enables you to change practice some more. Labour's strategy of progressive policies but centrist and sometimes reactionary rhetoric is proving counter-productive. You've got to create a mood.
'It's possible to imagine public spending in Britain at around 4 to 5 per cent more of GDP, with taxation at a higher level, a world where public services are things we're proud of rather than things we feel are crisis-ridden. We need to think about flexibility in the labour market that works for employees as well as employers. And we need to express a sense that the rich have responsibilities as well as the poor.
'While I agree with most of the things this government has done, I don't think it's changed the climate of opinion. On the constitution, Labour has created new political institutions – which are wholly welcome – but hasn't created a new political culture. But the worst example is Europe. The gap between Denmark and England in terms of quality of life and quality of public services is as big as that between England and Turkey. One of the priorities for IPPR in the next year is to shout about the best practice that takes place in European countries. To shout about the fact that in Belgium, every employer is required to let their employees work a four-day week if they chose to, about the quality of schools in Germany, about the quality of health-care in the Nordic countries.'
