I am grateful to Ivan Horrocks for drawing my attention to an article in the Guardian on Sunday. As Ivan noted:
There'll be a lot less academics being communicators come this May unless the Cabinet Office rule that will stop any academic who receives government funding from speaking out is implemented. As The Observer notes:
The proposal — announced by the Cabinet Office earlier this month — would block researchers who receive government grants from using their results to lobby for changes to laws or regulations.
‘For example, an academic whose government-funded research showed that new regulations were proving particularly harmful to the homeless would not be able to call for policy change.
Similarly, ecologists who found out that new planning laws were harming wildlife would not be able to raise the issue in public, while climate scientists whose findings undermined government energy policy could have work suppressed.'
As Ivan goes on to note:
I'd have to add that given the complete lack of interest our government has in compromising on any form of policy this will be “law” very shortly.
This is profoundly worrying. Let me take a simple example. My department at City University organised a public discussion last Thursday on Labour's world view. It would be impossible to argue that this was not publicly funded: at the very least it took place in publicly funded premises. Some criticisms of government policy were made. Would this now be illegal?
The impression that we are heading for a single party, totalitarian state where dissent is not allowed grows by the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Canada tried this for a few years, and it did not go well. Fortunately, their current government abolished it as a matter of urgency when they got in.
Of course, they needed an election for that to happen. What if the present govt decide there’s no actual need for elections any more and outlaw them? I wonder if we’d even know…
not such a far-fetched possibility…
That is one of the few things the House of Commons cannot do without the approval of both the Lords AND the Sovereign. The Queen has the power to force the government to go to the country & one of the residual powers the House of Lords has is to stop the Commons from abolishing elections. VERY important powers.
That’s encouraging to hear but I rather doubt we could depend on the Queen who would seem to have a vested interested in maintaining an uneven social order. And Cameron is trying to pack the Lords with conservative peers, is he not? Perhaps we now know why.
Ian Hutchinson. Very important powers, sidestepped completely by a cabinet (not parliament) approved “state of emergency” declaration
Our constitution would not allow the Government to abolish elections. This is the value of having the Queen as head of state …. She can call an election once the 5 years are up.
You take our money, you keep your mouth shut.
…Which is okay, I guess, with corporate funding. At least, we all seem to accept it.
But that’s a bad policy from an elected government – they fund research, in part, to know the effects of policy, not to publish cherry-picked facts for favourable PR – and the suppression of opinion in academia attacks a small but important component of democracy: universities are a rare enclave of well-informed free speech.
“universities are a rare enclave of well-informed free speech.”
But not for much longer it would seem with the rise of the ‘no platform’ shut down of dissent.
I do not support ‘no platform’ approaches myuch as I might find what is said abhorrent
The “no platform” issue is a red herring. It’s 1) a separate issue, and 2) a tissue of lies.
It is a casus belli invoked by some privileged people who demand the unfettered maintenance of their privileged access to the most significant points of public discourse, while falsely portraying themselves as the victims of the people whose right to exist is attacked by these privileged few.
There’s a fairly simple rule of thumb here: if you own the rare privilege of having a regular personal column in a national newspaper to whine about being “silenced”, you are not “silenced”.
What’s actually going on with the allegations of “no platforming” is that some of these privileged abusers of others are finally being challenged. Their assumption of a right to peddle hatred is being challenged for the first time … and unsurprisingly, they don’t like it.
But those grassroots attempts to stand up to privileged bigots is a a whole different ballgame to the govt’s efforts to ban any political dissent.
Surely the unfettered pursuit of knowledge is the function of a Unversity. Putting that knowledge into the public domain is a necessary part of that. Any government policy that challenges that premise and actively suppresses anything that challenges it’s views is undoubtedly the mark of totalitarianism.
Claire said:
“What’s actually going on with the allegations of “no platforming” is that some of these privileged abusers of others are finally being challenged. Their assumption of a right to peddle hatred is being challenged for the first time … and unsurprisingly, they don’t like it.
But those grassroots attempts to stand up to privileged bigots is a a whole different ballgame to the govt’s efforts to ban any political dissent.”
Hmm, I see they are different, but when some snotty middle class children face up to Peter Tatchell and claim he is racist (!) and transphobic (!!) just for attacking the policy of no-platforming Germaine Greer (who like Tatchell I disagree with her stance re: trans women, but think banning debate of it is silly), well I think they aren’t being the activists they claim to be. They’re showing their reactionary opinions…and in my experience NUS and students quite often hold quite conservative opinions, it was thus when I was one, and seems to be still the case.
I think those attitudes need to be challenged, because not only is the idea that these people are all bigoted ridiculous, but it’s the only way some of these people will learn real-life politics outside of the NUS/student bubble before they can do real damage in the world. Especially if they get fast-tracked into Labour, sadly those students end up being Jack Straw et al :-/
I have to say I think this is off topic – I am not encouraging responses even if appropriate
This appears to be yet more Tory divisive politics in an attempt to clamp down on genuine dissent or concern with their policies. For this to be in any way legitimate they would have to apply the same rules to all private organisations that receive any form of government commercial support by way of grants, allowances, patent rights, tax avoidance schemes etc etc etc.
In which case why not just ban all think tanks, all private donations to political parties, all ministerial private funding and all lobbying full stop. The problem with the Tories is they have no shame in being overtly hypocritical in their continual attempts to rig the game in their favour.
The world of political funding and lobbying is a dark and murky void that needs some very bright lights shone into it and a huge clean up of the immoral cesspit that it has become.
Legitimacy is the last thing anyone should expect from a government so hypocritical as to present itself as a bulwark for democracy while attempting to shut down all dissent for its policies.
I’ve said before that this government’s propaganda reminds me of Goebbels. I hope it’s not too alarmist to suggest that the level of its hypocrisy also reminds me of 1930s Germany and Italy, ie appropriation, though the magnification of fear of anything “other”, of attributes designed to win democratic support followed in short order by actions designed to effectively eliminate democracy.
I no longer think that alarmist
A cogent description of this process can be found in the late Milton Meyer’s tract ‘They thought they were free.’
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
It couldn’t happen here! Oh, wait… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here That was America but the same holds for, well, here… the book doesn’t look so satirical now, more a blueprint.
This is not going to promote INNOVATION or Progress the Economy! How small minded are these spoilt Tory boys? Hasn’t HISTORY taught then anything??
I would say it clearly has and this is why they’re doing it 🙂
On the contrary, history has taught them how ineffective their policies are, hence the need to suppress analysis. And the other big driver: the intended effects of policy are often not those declared.
I would add, Richard, that this is an extension of the so called ‘anti lobbying’ policy that already applies to NGOs, charities, etc that receive government funding, thus effectively spreading the chilling effect of that policy to another section of society that Tories believe to be populated with people with progressive (i.e. not neoliberal) views.
Note of course that commercial entities such as Capita, Serco, Virgin, etc ad infinitum, that receive government funding remain completely free to lobby as much as they like, while the Big 4, who routinely receive government funding for consultancy and research work also appear to remain free from this policy. But then again, as most of their “findings” support government policy that’s no real surprise.
Regarding your example of the kind of event that may fall within this policy, I dare say the government would deny this. However, it’s worth noting that prior to the last election there were cases of local charities being “reminded” by local Tory politicians that if they appeared in the media saying anything that could be construed as critical of government policy and they were in receipt of public funding (however received) they would be reported. Indeed, I know of a local charity that was asked by the local BBC to discuss the steep rise of homelessness in the east Midlands but declined to do so precisely because of fears they’d be reported.
In essence we are creating a Stasi state, and certainly a form of suppression of expression and thinking straight out of the Chinese government’s play book. Their friends in Bejing must be full of admiration for. 1984 gets ever closer.
I am well aware of an enormous amount if self censorship now
I have no doubt at all that this would extend to universities
Stasi indeed
While I agree with practically all that you say, 1984 is actually getting ever further away…
Literally, yes. Metaphorically and conceptually no, Verity. Perhaps we need to start referring to 2024 instead. The deed will be done by then.
Well totalitarian laws are mighty difficult to enforce whilst simultaneously diminuishing the state – so I canot see it working if enough academics and and academic institutions refuse to comply. When half the universities of the UK have funding witheld I cannot see it going well for the government.
Probably time for academia to join with the rest of us and polish up the pitchforks in readiness…
I hope so
they will not need to be enforced as people will self censor, fear of not getting further funding will be enough to do that
Agreed, in large part
many will not self censor the fear of not getting further funding will not be enough to do that
I hope so
Perhaps it is time for those who staff Universities to follow the example of the junior doctors and resist this iniquitous policy.
I agree. But It will be down to us junior academics I fear. Our leaders seem to be anything but fearless. And as for Universities UK, the Russell Group, neither has anything on their websites about this. How not?
Good question
There are numerous flaws in this government initiative but it is clear that they cannot deal with intellectual criticism because there is a profound lack of intelligence in the government in the first place.
Very good point Sam, unfortunately as well as being singularly lacking in brains, empathy and imagination this incompetent mob are total bullies. I am deeply concerned for the future of this country and only wish the brain washed sheeple would wake up !!!!
It’s that combined lack of brains,empathy and imagination that will undo them I suspect. These are mostly people who’ve been sucked up to all their lives because of the money they control and they confuse people’s attitude to their money as respect for their own individual (nonexistant) personal abilities. They want to rule the world but they’re just too dumb to ever be able to do it! I find it ironic they’ve sacked Shapps as he was the only commercially successful conman among them 🙂 He’d actually been out in the world and made some money for himself, most of the others haven’t, they’ve just gratefully accepted Daddy’s money while solemnly preaching the virtues of never getting something for nothing. They’re entirely insubstantial fraudsters who’re starting to argue among themselves already and their backers are already deafened by the sound of chickens coming home to roost. Will they or their backers even exist as a party by 2020? I doubt it. We’ll probably have two new factions, neoliberals and antineoliberals and any fight will be between them, not right and left.
The British electorate have a well honed sense of fairness and any serious assault on unfettered criticism of Government policy through the vehicle of academia will be chastised with the immediate effect. Maybe so much so, that academics join the ranks of junior doctors in order to prevent this new state interventionist neoliberal approach to dominance and enforcement.
the flaws will not matter, nor will the fear of repeal at the next election as the dealing with the effects will cause delays and that in its self will act as censorship allowing some of Tory policy to get through
This is serious and collective action required. Please join the third sector resistance:
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/sector-bodies-voice-dismay-cabinet-office-lobbying-clause-announcement/policy-and-politics/article/1382629
Agreed
Again, this has ‘an end of days’ ring about it – it is the behaviour of people who know that they are on a sticky wicket and are trying to keep a lid on it.
It indicates fear.
But please do not see Universities as some sort of paradigm of the counter narrative. I know a number of lecturers who voted Tory at the last election and whom still believe in neo-lib economics.
There are plenty of them
Almost every economist in an aconomics department for a start
Economics seems to have more in common with religion than science. All that nonsense about efficient, rational decision-making by participants in the Market. The second best psychologists go into psychology. The best go into marketing (pays better), to get people to make irrrational decisions. St least, the economists not in hock to capitalism have observed that the so-called ‘free market’ does not work, partly because a free market without free trades unions is not free. However, a true free market would end in a four-way shoot-out, as capitalism hires Pinkertons to protect their prerogatives, unions form a militia to protect their members, organised crime, looking for their slice of the action & the army, sent in by government to stop the chaos. Jim Ballard could have written the history of this dystopia.
I wasn’t for a moment suggesting or implying that, Pilgrim. I’ve been an academic long enough – and in several different universities and faculties – to know that is not, and probably never was the case. Indeed, even the now entrenched and continuing decline in both academics’ earnings and their status compared to other professions has not led to an increase in, or support for our union, the UCU.
But the point is important nonetheless because even though self censorship across academia has become commonplace over the past decade, research was still conducted and results published that provided evidence of whether policies and interventions worked (delivered) or not. Government already routinely sits on reports from research it commissions – witness the report on mental health services leaked recently, which shows what a dire situation they are in – but when a government considers it acceptable to go this far – with the support of big business through its deafening silence on the subject – we get a clear view of what the Tory future is for our already emasculated democracy. And boy does it look suspiciously like the road to what I once thought Tories railed against: the state as portrayed in 1984.
But I suppose it illustrates – if any further illustration were needed – that power corrupts, and absolute power (of the kind our electoral system and our currently pathetic “opposition” have delivered to us) corrupts absolutely. Combine that with a group of people lacking anything much resembling a moral compass and England faces a very, very dark next few years.
Ivan
I was moved to write my mini-missive about Universities because a lecturer on my recent MBA whom I considered to be rather good (his subject area was leadership) recently confessed to voting for Cameron because he did not see Miliband as a contender. I was astounded and very disappointed.
It emerged that even one of the other LSE trained academics was an advocate of free-markets. Yet the ideas extolled by this gentleman were far from top down (his speciality was operations management).
The thing is that both these rather inspiring academics seemed oblivious to the neo-lib Tory party’s policies undermining the very values and theories they were putting across to us.
I just cannot get my head around this intellectual disjuncture existing in these two supposedly well informed men – one of whom recently completed a PHD.
I have been encouraged to do my own PHD by the Uni. It is out of the question but if I were able to do it would be about the current political economy’s relationship (or not) with current dominant management theory. I suspect that my findings would have a profound message for those who run MBA programmes.
In other words, cut the bullshit and tell it like it is.
IPE awaits you…
Pilgrim
I hope your MBA was a success. Knowing something of such programmes (one of my responsibilities is an MBA in Technology Management) what you say doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. As my background is in government and politics I tend to get to author material that has a “political” dimension to it. I once authored a unit on power and politics (both macro and micro) for a module on technology strategy and I never ceased to be amazed by the number of students who found the material a bit of a revelation (and these are MSC and MBA students from many technology and management related professional backgrounds). The frequent defence I came across was that engineering, computing, biotech, and so on were “technical” and thus free from politics and power relations.
As far as the impact of neoliberalism on management theory goes, well the latter has always been dominated by market based thinking (eg. scientific management, which I’m sure you covered in your MBA) and so it hasn’t been difficult for neoliberalism to take root, as in much of the simplistic nonsense taught about innovation and entrepreneurs. The situation is then made worse by the fact that many MBAs rely on case study based teaching, through which the impression is given to students that the “solution” to an issue or problem is transferable regardless of context (ie. generic). And from that we arrive at what we now see across many organisations: management who know very little or nothing about the industry or sector in which their organisation operates (eg. railways, tax, universities, and so on) but who can wing it as they are “good” generic managers. Unfortunately, the outcomes frequently suggest otherwise.
Anyway, all the best.
How dare lecturers vote Tory! Send them for re-eductation.
….and sadly this grouping of professional middle class establishmentarians will like the other pillars of middle class aspiration, that ensure this vile ruling elite survives , will no doubt lay down on the backs, legs and arms extended in canine submission. The people who have the acumen to know exactly whats happening and the power to pull the rug from under this mounting tyranny … will, as usual, being the spineless self serving treacherous slime that they are, do nothing!
Can’t find the article – link please, Richard? Thanks.
I wouldn’t focus on what the proposed law might mean (eg use of university premises) when what it clearly does mean (censorship of research) is really bad.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/20/scientists-attack-muzzling-government-state-funded-cabinet-office
Governments do not have any money.
They just spend taxpayers’ money badly.
This development seems like yet another expletive of the latter.
Actually, all money is created by governments
And taxpayers benefit from having a stable currency to use
Your logic is completely wrong
Read The Joy of Tax
That’s just playing silly games with word. Most people pay taxes based on real work and real purchases so it is their real wealth (goods and services) that’s being used to fund research (which needs goods and services to proceed) and everything else. If they didn’t do the work and create real goods and services taxation would collapse and there would be no research or anything else.
Of course there are far too many people engaged in frothing up money and using that process to leech off some of the real wealth from real people but that’s a separate issue.
So you think the NHS is not real worth?
Nor education?
Or law and order?
And you really think that tax pays for them when QE proves that is not necessarily the case?
You really need to a) get your facts right b) learn some economics
All money is created by government? Since when? What about money created by banks when they pretend to lend it, which forms the majority in circulation? Are you arguing on the basis of MMT; govts create money into the economy then tax it out to avoid inflation? Are you now going back to the idea that banks function only as intermediaries?
Of course banks are not intermediaries: we know that
And banks do create money: we also know that
But they only do this under government licence. That is who one else can do it
It follows that the government effectively controls all money creation
“Governments do not have any money. They just spend taxpayers’ money badly. This development seems like yet another expletive of the latter.”
FFS.
I love these people who are absolutely convinced that their gross salary magically appears because they are such an awesome individual.
Your salary comes from other people’s spending. Initial government spending – since they are the monopoly supplier of Sterling in the UK economy.
It is entirely free. Extra state spending *causes* more income and sales which *causes* more taxation. As long as there is productive capacity unused the state can bring it into use – which improves profits and incomes all around.
Taxpayers caught creating money go to jail. So the money actually comes from elsewhere upstream. Your salary doesn’t appear fully formed out of the ether. Somebody else had to spend to make you worth employing.
As a retired legal academic, I find this new policy outrageous ( and I say this as a someone who is suffering ‘outrage fatigue’ from the actions of Cameron &Co.)
For example, an academic who has done funded research on the EU and who has come to a ‘best-to-leave’ or ‘best-to-remain’ conclusion could not speak as a citizen between now and 23 June. Lovely!
Nor could an academic who has done research on this wonky policy.
And what will be the punishment for an academic who breaks this policy, whether by accident or by design?
I can hear a joiner fitting up the stocks now in front of the House of Commons.
So do I
And I can hear the hammers a pounding all the way up here in Sheffield.
Keep it down Alan. We don’t want the buggers to know they’ve not entirely closed down our industry.
Alan, the punishment is straightforward. The academic will not be able to apply for any further government funding, and I suspect as they’re effectively blacklisted having them as a member of a “bid” will also be seen as a no-no. As grant capture is now an integral part of getting promoted in HE that means no promotion, and so the impact will ripple outwards through an entire academic career.
We are not dealing with a government. This is Mafia.
I was beginning to think I had been hallucinating when I thought I remembered this government promising to be the most transparent ever. However, it appears I haven’t lost my marbles yet. The reason I could find so little about the Tories’ pre-2010 election pledges is that they have been removed from the internet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10447707/Conservatives-wipe-all-pre-election-pledges-from-their-website.html
Along with the attempts to limit the FoI Act, the fact that private companies delivering public services aren’t subject to it anyway, the use of statutory instruments, the threats to the HoL (bless them!) because they dared to disagree on tax credits…and now this…the situation is becoming very sinister.
I’m not sure if it’s true or a myth, but apparently the Nazis never broke any domestic laws…they just changed them.
Would appreciate being able to republish this over on Learning from Dogs.
Feel free
Does anyone have a link to the text of the actual proposals, and their current status? If this is to be opposed, we need to know exactly what we are opposing.
I have not seen the detail yet
Link this with TTIP and they eliminate democratic opposition to global business empires and their puppet politicians,
Absolutely shocking but at least they can now retrospectively un-murder Dr David Kelly.
May I just point out a grammatical error which is preventing me from sharing this very important piece. I dare say this will appear picky to most, but I really hate to see this common mistake, especially appearing in scholarly articles. The word ‘less’ should only be applied to things which cannot be counted, such as ‘pedantry’. People, such as academics, can be counted, so one should say ‘fewer academics’. The same principle applies to the words ‘number’ and ‘amount’, as in ‘a number of people’ but ‘an amount of flour’. I hope you don’t mind my pointing it out. I have learned such a lot from your blogs on the subject of economics, and think it’s important we all spread the word, but errors like that one leap out at me and stop me from sharing. (Am aware how ‘sad’ I sound.)
Sorry
Ann, I wrote that comment in about two minutes in great haste, hence the error (there’s also another). Apologies.
Not at all! A very minor point indeed, which I only mentioned, because the content was so good, I felt the grammar should match it.
I have been compiling a list of the threats to dissent and democracy in the UK, which gets regularly longer as new measures are announced. I have just added this threat to gag academic voices. The latest schedule is at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rggb6ktren280od/Campaign%20to%20Defend%20British%20Democracy.doc?dl=0
As Mike says, this is part of a wholesale crackdown on dissent from this most anti-free speech government.
But academics also face another crackdown, this time driven by the Government attempting to change the economy of Universities and strip them of their obligations to protect academic freedom. If you have not read BIS’ delightful Green Paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-teaching-excellence-social-mobility-and-student-choice, I recommend you do so!
The terms of this are carefully coded so as not to scare the horses, but the gist is that
(a) Private Providers are to be given a free rein to recruit students to get a 9K fee from the Government
(b) Universities are expected to compete with Private Providers
(c) The role of Privy Council that protect Chartered Universities (the old Universities) from dissolving their Statutes on Academic Freedom will be weakened
(d) To facilitate all of this there will be a bonfire of quangos and a unitary Office of Students running a “TEF” – the metrics of which will be imposed by the Government of the day
For all these reasons many academics are getting together across the political spectrum to oppose this. There is a Convention taking place this Saturday (27 Feb) at UCL and there will be more events etc planned afterwards around the UK.
See https://heconvention2.wordpress.com
I am aware
The logic is so flawed it is amazing
There was a good article in the LRB on this
‘You will only be taught what we want you to be taught’ in effect, then. ‘You will only know what we want you to know’ will be the wish behind it. I assume this is why they’re gearing up to ban home schooling http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12060355/Home-schooling-crackdown-over-extremism-fears.html
Sean, no doubt you’ve seen the article on the Green Paper by Stefan Collini in the London Review of Books. A withering critique – it’s what Richard is referring to. I think it appeared about a month ago, but as I said to Richard at the time it should be required reading for every academic.
As I mentioned with regard to the clause to which this blog relates, this government (and the former one) made very little attempt to change any green paper they published and so I’d say that when the HE White Paper appears it’ll be pretty much what’s in the Green Paper. It certainly signals the end of higher education in England as we’ve known it.
Mike:
I would like to read the list/details of these threats. But I cannot; many of us do not use dropbox.
Is there an accessible link you can add?
Interesting. As a privately funded organisation the British Marine Life Study Society. have banned campaigning as part of their constitution, but this does allow representations (of information and members opinion). The reason was not to colour the research by pre-formed opinions (which might in turn colour the information received.
Not necessarily a stifling of opposition, although the powers seem to be there (wern’t they always?) for property owners to have their way against the interests of the common people.
Constituinally, I think research and politics should be separate. The scientists are not elected m’Lord.
Everything is political
Even the questions we ask are always political
It is impossible to separate science and politics
The way this, and previous, governments have treated the education sector is one reason that I left working at Universities and moved to the private sector.