Lisa Harker co-leads IPPR, the think-tank most closely associated with the New Labour era. But as Matthew O’Toole hears, these days she’s just as keen to engage with other political parties – not to mention Whitehall
At the Conservative party conference, one of the best attended – and most lively – fringe events was organised by a think-tank traditionally associated with New Labour. These days, the Institute for Public Policy Research (or IPPR, as it is universally known) is keen to highlight its engagement with opposition parties. Co-director Lisa Harker (pictured above) – she has shared the job with Carey Oppenheim since 2007 – may have been a key Labour adviser on child poverty policy, but she says she’s had “remarkably open” discussions with the manifesto-writing teams of all three major parties.
In fact, Harker says, her think-tank’s long-time influence on Labour means that opposition parties regard it as something of an authority on which approaches to policymaking went right – and wrong – over the past decade and more. “There’s a great deal of interest in learning the lessons of the last 13 years for the parties that have not been in power,” she says. “If you are an experienced think-tank, you come to the table knowing what hasn’t worked.”
Harker insists that ideology and political labels should not cloud the debate on public service reform, arguing that the scale of the deficit in the public finances requires a degree of lateral thinking that transcends traditional party affiliations. “Something’s happening across politics in all major parties,” she says. “[There is] a recognition that we are coming into a new era where there’s less money, where there will be fewer civil servants, and where we’ve reached the limits of governments governing by big, national initiatives.”
Rhetorically, at least, some of what she says chimes with elements of what both major parties have said recently on public service reform. So does the IPPR have more sympathy with Labour’s vision of a ‘Smarter Government’ – outlined in an eponymous policy document in December – or the heavily-localised, ‘post-bureaucratic age’ posited by David Cameron? At the minute, Harker tells me, this is simply “a choice between soundbites”.
“None of these ideas stack up unless you drill down into the detail,” she says. “The real challenge for those working on public policy is to turn those broad, sweeping phrases into real, workable policies.”
The IPPR itself is working on an ongoing project entitled ‘Smarter State’ – a phrase they deployed several months before the government used its own, similar term – which looks at the practical consequences of introducing greater decentralisation and a smaller, more strategic centre of government. In the initial study, researchers isolated four major periods in Labour’s attempts at public service reform, beginning with the target-driven, top-down approach that characterised its early years in government, and culminating in the more recent embrace of the ‘Smarter Government’ agenda.
Harker admits that Labour has a problem in convincing people that its approach has now changed. “It’s difficult for any government in power to learn lessons and then apply its new thinking to policy… [but] there’s nothing like the experience of government to make you realise the strengths and weaknesses of your approach,” she says. On the opposition, Harker suggests, there remains a worry that David Cameron’s rhetorical commitment to reform will not survive an election: “We don’t [want] to fall into the trap of government by a small group in Downing Street, and the real danger is that Cameron will follow the model that has gone before.”
On governance, Harker seems to share the increasingly common view – articulated by organisations such as the Institute for Government - that the centre of government has interfered in policy too much, and for too long. “The relationship between the centre and departments needs to be much clearer. The centre’s role is in setting the overall strategy,” she says. “You need your senior management to have the authority and scope to interpret that strategy and apply it within their own departments.”
In this area, Harker is not just talking theoretically; she has seen what happens when the centre hugs a policy so close that it throttles delivery. As child poverty czar, she worked inside the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to advise on meeting Labour’s pledge to halve child poverty by this year. Though Gordon Brown’s political muscle was initially helpful in getting attention, she says, the Treasury’s interference eventually became a liability. “It ultimately left a legacy of [the policy] being insufficiently owned across government; indeed, I’d go further and say that it’s not sufficiently owned across the state,” she says. “There was a sense that the Treasury would fix the problem – and, of course, it couldn’t.”
Though Harker acknowledges that other agencies in central and local government have begun to think more deeply about their contribution to child poverty policy, the government will, she says, miss its target on child poverty – though the data to officially confirm this won’t be available for another couple of years. A “lack of joined-upness”, she says, wasn’t the only reason the target was missed – but better inter-agency cooperation will be vital if it is ever to be met.
On the whole, Harker says, the experience of working inside Whitehall was far from wholly negative. She felt welcomed – notwithstanding some “irritation” at an her being outside appointment – and was impressed by the capabilities of those inside departments. “I particularly enjoyed working with those who enjoyed the challenge of someone coming in from outside, prepared to ask difficult questions,” she adds. “In the main, that was welcomed.”
More broadly, she says, Whitehall has become more transparent and more “porous” in the last ten years, and more willing to listen to good ideas from academia and think-tanks like her own: “We have a pretty strong relationship with civil servants, where we are able to share our analysis, swap notes on issues – it’s pretty collaborative.” Not all think-tanks take this line; anyone looking for a contrast with Harker’s attitude to officialdom should examine the rather more astringent views of Reform’s Andrew Haldenby in the last in our series of think-tank interviews.
As the IPPR itself has attempted to become more porous – and to spread beyond London – it may be something of a model for government; the think-tank set up a separate branch, IPPR North, in Newcastle in 2004. It’s a move that Harker thinks Whitehall leaders should consider emulating – above and beyond the levels of relocation currently pledged: “What you want to do is draw on the pool of talent and expertise around the country. That challenges our thinking to ensure we do not fall into the trap of thinking that every solution starts and finishes with a lever in Whitehall.”
IPPR: A short history
1988: Founded by left-leaning businessman Clive Hollick, with James Cornford as its first director
1994: IPPR-organised Commission on Social Justice produces a report which influences many Labour policies on social exclusion
1997: Labour elected to government, with many former IPPR staff ending up in ministerial or advisory positions, including David Miliband and former deputy director Patricia Hewitt
1999: Former Labour campaign director Matthew Taylor becomes IPPR director
2004: IPPR North founded, with offices in Newcastle
2009: Launch of Smarter State project, in association with Price Waterhouse Coopers; publication of high-profile report on security, co-chaired by Lords Ashdown and Robertson