4 August 2023

There’s a huge decision to be made at work – do you buy the branded tea bags or the supermarket’s own brand? Gasp.

​

The supermarket’s own bags are cheaper, have more to a box, and the majority of the team prefer the taste. The suppliers are also altruistic, give to climate change charities, and adopt thousands of stray puppies. On the other hand, the branded tea bags charge a premium for their name, are produced using unsustainable practices and known to be laced with arsenic to cut costs. After all, the odd few fatalities a year are simply collateral damage when you’re trying to sustain a plump, shareholder appeasing margin.

​

The final decision has been left to your manager. But it’s pretty clear cut, right?

​

Wrong.

To gather some well-rounded insight, your manager consults an external, ‘unbiased’ team to help decipher what’s best for said decision. It seems rather hyperbolic that they’ve even brought these people in. But it doesn’t matter, they’ll surely recommend the obvious decision after reviewing the facts. Dead colleagues aren’t good for morale after all.

​

Ah crap, wrong again.

Your manager, after consulting the external team, buys the branded, more expensive tea bags.

​

Why?! I mean… why?!

Because the external, ‘unbiased’ team recommended the branded bags.

​

But surely they can see the benefit the supermarket bags bring? It’s so obvious.

Of course they understand that. But after discovering a document left in the printing room while you were siphoning off printing paper (if these clowns paid you enough you wouldn’t have to steal paper), you discover some confidential documents. You accidentally spy that a significantly large amount of the external team’s biscuits – Hobnobs at that, come from the branded tea bag company to influence their recommendations. And because the team claims they’re a charity, they didn’t have to declare any of this.

​

So, instead of making the decision that makes the team happy, saves money and the planet, the external team maintains their hefty stream of sweet confectionary goods by recommending the branded bag.

​

This might be a silly analogy…

But that’s essentially what’s happening with the government right now -  making decisions about the country based on the think tanks’ recommendations.

​

Rishi Sunak has recently openly praised the think tank Policy Exchange as 'most influential' for helping him draft the law that targets environmentalist protests. This comes after a report published by Policy Exchange, referred to Extinction Rebellion protests as ‘extremism’.

​

And Sajid Javid waxed lyrical about how a think tank had 'deeply influenced his views', helping to develop the economic and political philosophy that guides him to this day.

​

So what? If the government chooses to use a group to advise on their policies, what’s the problem? There isn’t one, is there?

Allow us to disabuse you of that notion. 

​

One big issue is that some of these influential think tanks are registered as charities. This means they don’t have to disclose their donors and we have no idea where their funding comes from.

​

Let’s take Rishi’s current bestie, Policy Exchange - the think tank who referred to extinction rebellion protests as ‘extremism’. Founded in 2002, they describe themselves as:

​

'An independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.'

​

Bypassing the fact they’re playing fast and loose on the phrase ‘non-partisan’, they claim their work goes towards a better, stronger society.

​

According to who exactly?

Well it ain’t us plebs. According to the Office of National statistics, 3 out of 4 Britons are feeling ‘very worried’ about climate change - the second biggest concern for us after the cost of living. So, when they recommend law changes to punish climate change protestors, it doesn’t really feel as if they’re doing much for a society worried about the world literally burning down in front of our eyes.

​

But if it isn’t representing the majority of people, who are they representing?

This is where the dark money comes in. Remember when the external team and registered charity recommended the arsenic laced tea bags because the brand had paid them in Hobnobs? In a recent report by openDemocracy, it has been alleged that this particular protestor hating think tank’s US wing, who provides funding to the UK branch, have previously received donations from a behemoth in the oil industry. And two years later, BAM! a report describing climate protestors as extremists is published. However, because they’re registered as a charity, they can keep an impenetrable veil over those who fund them.

​

To put it simply, this powerful influence who recommended the Prime Minister cracked down on climate protests, allegedly took a big pile of bread and honey from oil giants. But if it wasn’t for openDemocracy’s report, this fact would’ve remained in the shadows because of their charity status.

​

And let’s not forget the lovely little tax breaks they receive

Charities receive a range of tax breaks due to their charitable status and are exempt from taxes on much of their income. They also pay less in business rates and can claim part of the tax that would be paid by their donors for themselves.

​

So again, are they really contributing to a greater society? Or are they simply pushing their own agendas while receiving a nice little tax break for the pleasure?

​

What are the rules then?

The Campaigning and political activity guidance for charities (CC9) on gov.uk advises:

​

'[It is a] legal requirement: to be a charity an organisation must be established for charitable purposes only, which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.'

​

‘[It is a] legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity.’

​

Let’s look at Guide Dogs and their Open Doors campaign, for example. They’re campaigning for the government to strengthen the law that says businesses can’t refuse entry to those with guide dogs (you can support it here). They must campaign for political change to make life easier and more inclusive for their clients – their main intent and objective. They have to get political to meet the charity’s overall purpose.

​

But when it comes to our favourite think tank, does criminalising climate protestors really contribute to 'delivering, a stronger society'? A society who is quoted as 'very worried' about climate change? Or, does it just keep a group of people who disagree with their donors’ interests, quiet?

​

Charity statuses need more scrutiny

We’d have to be severely naïve to look upon certain ‘charitable’ think tanks and their recommendations, to truly believe law changes that benefit their donors aren’t their prevailing north star. There needs to be some transparency over who their donors are. That way we can make our minds up about whether those taking the advice are worthy for their place in Parliament. After all, we employ these marionettes, so we need to know the intent of the puppeteers who are operating their strings.

​

And with so many think tanks invited to give their opinions on popular shows such as Question Time, there needs to be more candour surrounding these ‘experts’ before they’re propped up in front of us as authorities on topics that hang so precariously over a chasm of division.

​

It seems to us that the power we thought rested neatly within those who are voted in, actually lies in the hands of their so-called 'charitable' friends. But then again, what do we expect as a jaded nation? As political Philosopher and Economist Friedrich Hayek once advised Antony Fisher – one of the most influential faces in the rise of libertarian think-tanks, 'not to waste his time taking up politics directly, but instead to set up a scholarly institute with the aim of shifting public opinion.'

​

So, if you want to influence politics, don’t become a politician, just set up a think tank. Duh.