Think Tanking Britain: Policy Exchange and the Security State
Think Tanking Britain: Policy Exchange and the Security State
In an excerpt from his Byline Times essay, Tom Griffin explores how an ideological reliance on lobbying groups has created a hardline, Islamophobic focus in counter extremism polices.
Although founded in 2002 by Conservative modernisers, Policy Exchange has long been defined by the hardline security policies which shaped David Cameron’s 2010 Munich speech and the subsequent review of the Prevent counter-extremism programme.
The think tank’s director, Dean Godson, has said that the “preference of much of the permanent bureaucracy has been to partner up with a range of ‘credible’ non-violent extremists”, even castigating MI5 for its timidity “in dealing with what used to be called ‘subversion'”.
For much of the Conservatives’ term in office, Policy Exchange’s founding chairman, Michael Gove, has been a key voice in government promoting this concept of non-violent extremism against a narrower Home Office focus on counter-terrorism.
On Islam, he has retained the hardline views of ‘Celsius 7/7’ – the polemic that he launched at Policy Exchange in 2006. Among his first decisions as Sunak’s Communities Secretary was to abandon work on an official definition of Islamophobia. The Government was already resisting the definition put forward by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia, citing strong opposition from “a wide range of organisations”, although three of the four groups named by – “Civitas, Policy Exchange, the Barnabas Fund and the Henry Jackson Society” are right-leaning think tanks.
The Sunak Government’s approach to the Muslim community may instead be set by the independent review of Prevent, carried out by the same William Shawcross whose daughter is a donor and advisor to the Prime Minister.
Gove was reported last month to be lobbying against Home Office attempts to redact the names of Muslim individuals and organisations from the report, which accuses some Prevent-funded groups of promoting extremism.
The published report cites eight different Policy Exchange reports. Although it relies on the concept of non-violent extremism pioneered by the think tank, it is ambivalent about its application in practice, arguing that while Prevent products “related to Islamist terrorism focus on the most serious material relating to violent Islamist ideology, mostly Islamic State and al-Qa’ida, much of the material covering Extreme Right-Wing falls well below the threshold for even non-violent extremism”.
This conclusion was strongly criticised by former head of counter-terrorism policing, Neil Basu, who has said that is “driven by a right-wing viewpoint that [Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism] is either unimportant or doesn’t really exist”.
The report’s list of recent terrorist attacks ignores the extreme-right fire-bombing of a Dover immigration centre last November (although this may have occurred after its completion). Policy Exchange’s Dr Paul Stott has argued that the Dover attack is illustrative of a tendency for far-right extremists to be older and more isolated than their Islamist counterparts. Whether that makes the threat any less urgent is open to question.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has accepted William Shawcross’ recommendations, is unlikely to provide the counterweight to Gove that some of her predecessors did.
Last August, she gave a speech to Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, attacking what she called “the judicially-expanded European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act”. She argued that “the Strasbourg Court has operated to thwart aspects of our domestic policy-making in relation to illegal migration. This conclusion that is aptly demonstrated by the authoritative study for Policy Exchange by John Finnis QC and Simon Murray, and strongly endorsed by Lord Hoffmann”.
According to the Observer, when she became Home Secretary the following month, Braverman asked her officials to look at implementing a Policy Exchange report calling for the resettlement of individuals with accepted asylum claims outside the UK, in defiance of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Home Office denied the claims, but a member of the team behind the report, Lord Simon Murray, was made a minister in the department under Liz Truss, and remains there under Sunak.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury challenged the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda in a Lords debate, Lord Murray cited a Policy Exchange paper which defended the theological credentials of the policy against the objections of the major church leaders in the UK. This prompted the Archbishop to respond that “Policy Exchange has a valuable function in provoking ideas, but not always quite as a valuable a function in solving problems”.
Policy Exchange, Downing Street and the Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment.
Although seen as a counterweight to Braverman, Home Office Minister Tom Tugendhat has also worked with Policy Exchange, co-authoring a pamphlet calling for an updated law of treason. It was reported in January that the Home Office wanted to implement his proposals in the current National Security Bill but was overruled by the Ministry of Justice.
In December, a peer close to Policy Exchange, Lord James Bethell, sponsored an amendment to insert the treason law into the bill, citing Tugendhat’s paper as his inspiration. He failed to win support from his fellow peers, who feared treason prosecutions would give terrorists a propaganda boost without filling a real gap in the law.
During the 2022 Conservative leadership campaign, Sunak himself flirted with one of Policy Exchange’s most far-reaching proposals: withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights. His government has instead opted for Justice Secretary Dominic Raab’s plan for a British Bill of Rights to constrain the domestic application of international human rights law.
Other attempts to legislate based on Policy Exchange’s claims of judicial overreach, partly fuelled by post-Brexit litigation, have not gone well. A review of judicial review largely vindicated the existing system, and the resulting Judicial Review and Courts Act was less radical than might have been expected.
The Judicial Power Project has presented itself as defending parliamentary democracy against an American-style constitutional model. Yet it has itself received US funding – an earmarked contribution of $45,000 in 2015 from the New York-based Rosenkranz Foundation.