Skip to content
Login

James Wilsdon

photo of James Wilsdon

The Royal Society Science Policy Centre

James Wilsdon is Director of the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science. From 2001 to 2008, he worked at Demos, first as Head of Strategy, then Head of Science and Innovation.

Posted by James Wilsdon at 10:53am on Wednesday, 8th December 2004

For the third time in the past few months, Martin Jacques (one of Demos' founders) chose to devote part of a Guardian comment piece to an attack on think tanks.

Apparently, we "mark the triumph of political adolescence over experience...as a cultural form [our] staff are generally extremely young, utterly lacking in experience, devoid of the wisdom that only life can teach."

Hmmm. Thanks for that Martin. A really thought-out critique. Quite apart from the fact that a fair few of our (and ippr's) staff and associates aren't exactly spring chickens, surely politics has always in part been propelled forward by the enthusiasm, passion - and yes, occasional naivety - of the young. I made a similar point in a letter to the Guardian yesterday.

It's sad to see Martin turning with such bitterness on things which he once worked hard to create. From the general drift of his past few columns, one can only presume that he has ambitions to become the new Melanie Phillips.

Indeed, if think tanks like Demos are now 'too young' for him. perhaps he could find a new home at Civitas? They're all about 57 and do a lovely line in tweed.

Comments

1
savage. depends on who you consider as "working for demos". I'm sure if you factor in all the associates, trustees and friends you probably get a much more paunch friendly mean organisational age. But quite frankly James, who cares? As Demos moves into less-conventional models of thinkery and seeks to work in a more open fashion (theoretically involving anybody who wants to get involved in research), talking about our work in terms of the age of people sitting at desks seems like a bit of a red herring. If anybody wants to have a bash at editing a demos pamphlet i think you can do it at www.demoswiki.co.uk Charlie Tims, 63
Posted by Charlie Tims  at 10:32am on Wednesday, 8th December 2004
2
I confess I was also somewhat enraged by the piece. No doubt this is partly a defensive reaction. But contrary to Charlie's point, I think it is perfectly reasonable to tear the article to shreds for its peculiar choice of targets and general incoherence. For example, I would think it perfectly reasonable to criticise politics for being immature. But surely the dysfunctional, immature relationship between politicians and the media is a much more pernicious influence than think-tanks could ever be. And as our work with Boomers has shown, popular culture IS reflecting our ageing society. Unfortunately for Martin Jacques, Boomers seem to be interested in buying Norah Jones CDs as well as proper, grown-ups music (people in their 40s buy more CDs than teenagers).
Posted by Paul Skidmore  at 2:52pm on Wednesday, 8th December 2004
3
Oh you are all so mean. Is this what you young whippersnappers call a blog? Still its not all bad... lots more people read my important Guardian article than these nasty spiteful comments. And personally I just love Norah Jones. Now where did i put my pipe and slippers? And why did i ever leave Marxism today to set up this ungrateful excuse for a think tank? Respect your elders - remember? Now get away with you before I set you all 100 lines 'I must not get involved in politics until I am at least 45. I must not get involved in politics until I am at least 45. I must not...'
Posted by MJ MJ  at 3:32pm on Wednesday, 8th December 2004
4
There's an incredibly important side to Martin's article that preoccupation with his think tank comments obscures. Demos is a big fan of 'autonomy', a very New Labour belief that we can have our self-fulfilment cake and still enjoy a cohesive community, deep and long-lasting personal relationships, serious (as opposed to an ironic) moral engagement with the issues of our time and other facets of what Martin calls a 'profound' society. Maybe the evidence is there to suggest that we can and that people generally recognise that 'true' self-fulfilment requires these qualities. It's just that Martin (and I) don't quite see it that way. Come on Demos, don't be precious
Posted by Bob Tyrrell  at 10:44am on Thursday, 9th December 2004
5
As an old friend of Martin's, now sadly rather out of the first flush of youth, one other aspect intrigues me. Like quite a few commentators Martin has repeatedly shifted his position over the years (though in each case articulating his beliefs very firmly): enthusiasm for communism then disillusion; enthusiasm for Thatcher then disillusion; enthusiasm for Blair then disillusion. A harsh critic might describe successive crushes as a less attractive side of adolescence. But perhaps it's a sign of a healthy openess to change? It raises the bigger question: do we respect people more if they are consistent? Or do we like people who take the Groucho Marx attitude: 'sure I've got principles, and if you don't like these ones I'm sure I can find some others ...'
Posted by Geoff Mulgan  at 12:51pm on Thursday, 9th December 2004
6
Perhaps Bob is right. As I made my way into the article, I also thought it was going to be a deeper meditation on the paradox (discussed in various Demos interventions recently) of our individual happiness and contentment but deep yearning for fulfilling collective experiences, which speaks to precisely the point that he raises. However, what actually emerged is a reactionary rant that this is somehow all young people's fault, and that our poor older generations are somehow being unjustly robbed of their right to dictate (by sheer weight of numbers) the content of politics, media and the arts. No honest assessment of who holds power - as voters, consumers, or in the upper echelons of any major institution - could possibly reach the conclusion that young people have too much power. Most, in fact, would reach the opposite conclusion, which in political terms may explain why the young are opting out of formal political participation in such large numbers. But the bit I find least able to understand is the sense that I am somehow unlucky not to have experienced the mass suffering of total war, because it has deprived me of some more profound insight into the human condition. Personally I'm grateful that my grandparents' and my great-grandparents generation went through that learning process on my behalf. For if the choice is between living in an infantile culture that spends too much time reading Heat magazine and not enough searching for the meaning of life, or a gerontocracy that sends thousands of its young men to be mown down on Flanders fields, I take the former every time. But perhaps I'm just too young to know better.
Posted by Paul Skidmore  at 3:44pm on Thursday, 9th December 2004
7
"But perhaps it's a sign of a healthy openess to change? It raises the bigger question: do we respect people more if they are consistent?" A few years ago I worked out that the trait I favour most in political thinkers is to have had a passion, pursued it until disollusioned, and thereafter approach the world in a much more cautious, empirical fashion. If you've never gone through the process of working out why what you really believe is wrong, then I don't think you can ever be that good at understanding other people's beliefs and why they hold them them, and in what ways people manage to circumnavigate evidence that would disturb their assumptions. So for me, going back on one set of beliefs is essential for a healthy mind, but going back twice certainly looks like carelessness.
Posted by Tom Steinberg  at 7:12pm on Thursday, 9th December 2004
8
In an adversarial political system, such as exists here or in the US, I think the public are always more likely to identify with politicians who espouse clear, deeply held views: it helps create a sense of real difference between the parties, and thus inspires real debate and enthusiasm. Indeed, surely one of the reasons for the growing disconnect between politics and the public is the perception that old definitions of 'Left' and 'Right' no longer exist: with the water between the main parties becoming muddied, how is the electorate supposed to make a clear, informed choice? And moreover, how can people be confident that politics can make a real, tangible improvement to their daily lives if they don't know what the parties stand for any more? Note the success of 'conviction' Prime Ministers like Churchill, Thatcher, and indeed, Blair. In the latter's case, people might be confused as to his stance in domestic issues (hence the frequent accusation that he's really a Tory) - but he's certainly distinctive, for better or worse, when it comes to foreign policy. Indeed, I think Blair was keenly aware that his place in history would depend on how clear, and how based on conviction, his leadership would appear to be: hence his metamorphosis in his second term from a wishy-washy, 'all things to all men' Premier into a far stronger, harder-headed leader. Yet whereas politicians need to sound distinctive in opposition, in truth, they will always be dragged towards the centre once in government. This is where, in my view, much of the public doesn't really get it. No party can afford to be too radical once in power, for fear of losing the centre ground - and Britain's long-established, slowly-evolved form of representative democracy has only succeeded because generation after generation has had an instinctive understanding of where the centre ground lay. Thus parties who appeared too extreme (like Foot's Labour party, or Hague's Tories) have got nowhere near power: the electorate regarded them as far removed from where they themselves stood on most issues. And similarly, even 'conviction' politicians like those I've mentioned above have been forced to moderate their style in practice. Churchill, for instance, would have embraced a very similar version of the welfare state to that established by Attlee had his party been returned in 1945. Thatcher, that well-known Europhobe, actually signed the Single European Act in 1985 - which has led inexorably to closer integration, Maastricht, Nice, and indeed, the Constitution. And Blair, while achieving a remarkable shift in political discourse on public services (which Paul correctly emphasised a few weeks ago), also embraced Tory spending plans in his first term, refused to put up income tax, and has adopted an authoritarian stance on home affairs of which Michael Howard would be proud. Why? Because you have to stay in the centre: you can't just cater for your base. So my conclusion is that clarity and conviction work in opposition, but are inevitably subordinate to centrist moderation once in government. Because if you're not seen as holding the centre ground, you ain't likely to stay in government for too long! Lastly, on Mr Jacques' critique of think tanks: well, it's undoubtedly true that society nowadays is wildly eschewed in the direction of young people: absurdly so, in the case of advertising and the media. But Paul is dead right to point out that for decades, the young have played a pivotal role in developing ideas which those in power ultimately take up - whether through protest and direct action in the '60s, or by arguing for the decriminalisation of soft drugs more latterly. A decade ago, who'd have thought a British government's stance on drugs would have shifted so much? Yet it has - and who can say it would have done so without young people discussing the issue in the first place? And yes, think tanks have a lot of young people working for them - but it's hardly something to apologise for. Many graduates see a role within a think tank as the first step on the ladder leading to a career in politics: and Mr Jacques, most graduates are in their early- or mid-twenties. What should think tanks do? Refuse to employ talented and aspiring graduates, or something? How will future generations get involved in politics if they're told to 'go away, and come back when you're 45'? Shaun.
Posted by Shaun Shaun  at 9:20pm on Thursday, 9th December 2004
9
I think this posting itself bears out some of the points made by Charlie earlier on – one of Demos’ central aims is to cross-fertilize ideas by connecting people from different organisations, fields and backgrounds. This seems to have happened fairly successfully, and doesn’t appear to have been held back by whatever the average age of a Demos researcher is. A second point to make it that this process does not seem to have happened principally because of the number of newspaper inches that we have generated on the topic – but rather because of the use of the blog as a way of engaging people in an entirely different way. This isn’t to say that public profile no longer matters, but the suggestion that Demos measures its influence by column inches seems as wide of the mark as the assumption that all of an organisation’s ideas should come from the wise and experienced people that it employs.
Posted by Duncan O'Leary  at 1:23pm on Friday, 10th December 2004

LOGIN to add comments